Peter Berger on religious freedom
Noted sociologist Peter Berger in his latest blog asks: “Is freedom of religion endangered in the U.S.? His own answer: “It seems to me that, empirically speaking, the answer is no,” especially by comparison with many other areas of the world. But while he has criticisms of the “level of alarm” demonstrated by the USCCB, he thinks that there are some serious issues involved in the two cases of the insurance mandate and same-sex marriage:
It will be clear from the above that I am not in tune with the vehemence of the bishops’ campaign. Although there continue to be disputes over the balance between the free-exercise and no-establishment clauses in the first amendment, there are more painstaking protections of religious freedom in the United States than in just about any other country in the world. Nevertheless,the bishops are right that both issues raise questions about religious freedom. The fact that things are enormously worse in Iran or Saudi Arabia is beside the point: American standards should be enormously better than those prevailing in those two countries. On the fight over the insurance mandate, the bishops are right in saying that contraception is not the issue here, but rather the government’s interfering in how Catholics understand and practice their faith (praying in church a religious act/nursing the sick a secular act). In the matter of same-sex marriage, the bishops are also right in separating the legal status of such a practice from the freedom of speech and symbolic action of those who oppose the practice. In both disputes, the core question is about government overreach—an important enough issue to justify what will probably be a long trek through the federal courts to the Supreme Court.
After citing examples in which religious freedom and freedom of speech have been threatened here and elsewhere, he concludes:
Beyond the legal matter of cases that require new clarifications of the first amendment, there is a broader issue here—that of an increasingly intolerant culture of secularism, trying to use the state to enforce its values—itself part of the even broader issue of government over-reach. The Roman Catholic Church has been a major target of this secularist agenda, because its sexual ethics has been repugnant to many people (the ever widening scandal of pedophile priests has clearly fed the repugnance). There is a very real issue of religious freedom here—a good reason to support the Catholic bishops, even if one completely disagrees with their views on issues south of the navel.
What is the “secularist agenda?” Is it part of this agenda to try to figure out what can be meaningfully defined as “religious” and thus qualify for exemption from “government overreach?” Unless, we are going to let every group decide what counts as “religious” for them, which would be chaos, the meaning of “religion” will always be determined “from the outside” and those whom it excludes will claim it is the “secularist agenda” that is oppressing them. But that’s what language does, it includes some and excludes others, and while we participate in the creation of concepts, we don’t each get to stipulate our own conceptual universes, which we then claim are binding for everyone else. To many, the claim that “nursing the sick” is a “religious” act isn’t exactly self-evident, not least because there are plenty of secular nurses who might not want what they do to be theologically appropriated as “anonymously Christian.” On the other hand, “praying in Church” seems pretty uncontroversially “religious,” even if we might find a few tortured souls for whom prayer doesn’t seem to connect with the Divine. Simply doing away with distinctions is not sufficient (unless you go in for some kind of deconstructive relativism, but I never thought of the USCCB as closet Derridians). The Bishops need to offer an meaningful alternative to what they perceive to be a “narrow” definition of religion, and they need to convince people that this is the appropriate, universally acceptable definition. Otherwise, they are just telling people that what they see as “green” is actually the result of their deep-seated, subconscious bias against “blue,” and no one likes being accused of being a crypto-bigot.
Can you link us to this entire blog?
“In the matter of same-sex marriage, the bishops are also right in separating the legal status of such a practice from the freedom of speech and symbolic action of those who oppose the practice. ”
What is Berger talking about? Don’t the bishops virulently oppose same-sex marriage in the civil arena? Aren’t the nuns being pounced on for failing to speak out against civil marriage of persons of the same sex?
Berger’s phrase “such a practice” would also merit analysis.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/berger/
The second post, on the obsolescence of honor, is very interesting.
You’re right, Joseph O, more conceptual fuzziness. I take it that Berger is suggesting that the “legal status” of same-sex marriage could be differently designated “symbolically” from it’s “religious status.” So, something like legal “unions” versus religious “marriages,” but the bishops already opposed same-sex civil unions. So, they can hardly retreat to “symbolic distinction” now. Furthermore, I don’t see a lot of them arguing that the same legal/religious distinction should be rigorously maintained for heterosexual “unions.” So, once again, we get an unwillingness to disentangle the religious from the secular, while still trying to maintain that the secular is somehow imposing upon the religious. Which is it? Either civil “marriage” needs to be rigorously and conceptually distinguished from religious “marriage” across the board, or the bishops need to stick to their position that there is only one kind of “marriage” and convince people that their definition is the universally applicable one. They can’t oscillate from the latter to the former when in looks like the latter strategy is not working.
Gibberish. (Berger AND Nancy.)
Eric: I’m sure that there are some secularists who have the agenda of removing religion from the public arena, and it’s this that the Catholic Church has consistently resisted under the name of “liberalism”. It’s the issue that arises if one believes it possible to distinguish the question of the relation between Church and State from that of the relation between religion and society.
The First Amendment excludes two things: the government’s establishing any single religion and the government’s prohibiting the free exercise of religion. What is to count as a “religion” has indeed been a matter for discussion and common resolution, which does not necessarily mean that it was determined “from the outside.” Caring for the sick and needy has traditionally been regarded as a religious obligation (and without noticeable damage to the self-image of secular nurses), and that it should suddenly not be so regarded surely deserves discussion and common resolution, unless others are to be allowed to stipulate their conceptual universes and then claim that they are binding for everyone else.
I agree entirely that “the Bishops need to offer a meaningful alternative to what they perceive to be a ‘narrow’ definition of religion, and they need to convince people that this is the appropriate, universally acceptable definition.” But surely the same obligation falls upon people who want to depart from our culture’s traditional understanding of what is included among religious practices, especially if they wish also to make their narrower definition broaden government’s reach.
Please let me give expression to an uneasiness about the way this issue has now been joined. We all agree that the Church includes the laity no less than it does the clerical hierarchy. Here we have an important political issue and public policy. The bishops, with no widespread consultation of the laity about this matter, have adopted a position and launched a public relations campaign which they then claim that all right-thinking Catholics ought to support. This cannot avoid being seen as an exercise of political clout on the part of the bishops. That some people, and I’m one of them, find it worrisome to have the Catholic hierarchy claiming for themselves this political leadership ought to occasion no surprise. One piece of evidence gives weight to this worry, namely the speech of Supreme Knight Carl Anderson in Indianapolis recently to the Catholic Press Association. What he calls for in the latter part of his speech is not anything “traditional” in American politics. Anderson is known to have close ties to influential members of the hierarchy, among them Archbishop Lori. What Anderson proposes amounts to a litmus test that politicians would have to subscribe to or else face the organized opposition of this bishop-led Catholic bloc.
Now, the other, and no less important, part of my worry is that for the American Catholic community to take this suggested approach will almost inevitably at least obscure if not distort the Gospel message. Where in all this is there room to bear public witness to the Beatitudes and to the Jesus’ injunctions concerning how we ought to conduct ourselves toward the neediest of his children. If we allow this Gospel message to be obscured, then have we not ourselves become “secularists” of another stripe, who really do take our kingdom to be of this world.
If, as Hosanna seems to be saying, each group calling itself “religious” defines the word for itself, then it seems to me that that opens the door to “religion” being a family resemblance term. If it is one (and I suspect it is one already), then we cannot expect the Court to settle on one definition that will fairly represents every group.
It seems that now “religion” often means simply what is the most valuable to a person, and that can include everything from God to a cup of coffee (see the “whoosh” experiences). This being a thoroughly subjective and individual sort of criterion, the Court cannot define it, that is, it cannot offer a meaning that is universally common to all “religious” beings.
It completely eludes me how limiting marriage equality is considered a matter of religious freedom. I might object to certain marriages for other reasons, but how does preventing others from marrying have anything at all to do with my own religious freedom?
“What Anderson proposes amounts to a litmus test that politicians would have to subscribe to or else face the organized opposition of this bishop-led Catholic bloc.”
Classic current (oxymoron?) Tea Party/NRA/Limbaugh tactics.
Shame on any members of the episcopacy who buy into this garbage.
Thou shalt NOT fund fools and fiends. If you do you have no right to complain about their idiocy.
When is it a canary in a coal mine, and when is chicken little crying the sky is falling? A serious institution, and there is none more serious than the Roman Catholic Church, should use its power prudently, only when absolutely necessary, and only with the amount of force needed.
Unfortunately, I believe, the USCCB and its political allies, have failed the test on several counts. It will, in the end, diminish, not enhance their authority, even if they achieve short-term tactical objectives.
Is there any political issue that could currently be put on the table for possible reform, and on which the US bishops may be able to gather Catholics behind them for a push? The US are so divided that, on any issue, people are going to split along the Democrat versus Republican divide, and bishops will only be able to get at most half of the Catholics behind them.
Maybe this is a strategic move and US bishops are smarter than they seem: they have calculated that the only way for them to have political influence is to side with one of the two political parties, and they have chosen the Republicans. What do they have to lose? Not much – for years we’ve been going on and on about their lack of credibility as spiritual leaders, because of the sexual abuse scandal. Maybe they have given up on that and are trying out a fresh angle.
“iagree entirely that “the Bishops need to offer a meaningful alternative to what they perceive to be a ‘narrow’ definition of religion, and they need to convince people that this is the appropriate, universally acceptable definition.” But surely the same obligation falls upon people who want to depart from our culture’s traditional understanding of what is included among religious practices, especially if they wish also to make their narrower definition broaden government’s reach.”
They already HAVE. They point out in their reply to the HHS mandate how the narrow definition departs from broader definitions in other areas of federal law that have existed for quite some time. Rather than put the burden of proof on the bishops – who have lived within the confines of federal law for quite some time just fine – shouldn’t it rather be on the Administration who has chosen to upset this apple cart?
bernatd as usual is quite germane.
BTW Anderson has strong ties to the GOP.
While Berger has attempted to give nunance to secularization, I tyhink the issue of that topic is only a frame to maintain hierachoical discretion ,despite a broader meaning of Church/religion.
If that analysis is correct and I offer it not from a political perspective. it strikes me the burden Is on the Bishops.
Jeff: You have misunderstood my point, which was that the burden of proof is on the Administration.
Claire: I don’t believe that the bishops have decided “to side with one of the two political parties.” If so, how explain their endorsement of the President’s recent decision on immigrants? I think the partisanship-argument against the bishops is a red herring.
Bernard’s uneasiness, so well expressed above, is widely shared among the laity. That speech of Carl Anderson’s was like something out of a satiric novel. That the hierarchy finds him a plausible ally says something about their grip on reality.
Maybe they haven’t decided on partisanship. But I don’t understand what they’re doing.
The Obama Administration’s actions in this area are a real concern and the bishops are right to highlight them. The attack on religious freedom did not begin with the HHS mandate; it began with the Obama Administration’s attempt to bully a small Lutheran congregation over how it disciplined its ministers. Fortunately, that attempt at bullying was rebuffed by a unanimous Supreme Court, but it revealed a mindset without any real precedent in our history: a desire to use federal power to tell mainstream Christian bodies how they should govern themselves.
What the bishops asked for from the Administration would have been granted as a matter of course by Clinton or Carter, not to mention the Bushes or Reagan. The bishops were not trying to outlaw contraception; they were simply trying to preserve the autonomy of Catholic institutions not to fund or facilitate something that Catholic teaching regards as intrinsically evil.
But the Obama Administration refused to budge, and continues to refuse to budge. If Obama is willing to pick fights with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Catholic Church in a close election year, what is he going to do if he is reelected?
Susan, thank you. Therere is no one who blogs here for whom I have a higher regard than you. I hope that both you and Joe are well.
“What the bishops asked for from the Administration would have been granted as a matter of course by Clinton or Carter, not to mention the Bushes or Reagan.”
At Cardinal O’connor’s funeral Cardinal Law and the other bishops publically attacked the POTUS with their one issue before a national audience. It seemed about that time that the church sided with Repubicans over Democrats and incited the Democrats to get revenge. Then came the farce about the bishop’s criticism of inviting the POTUS to speak at Notre Dame commencement. Further after virtually calling on every parish in the country to vote Republican for the last two decades, the bishops may have gotten what they deserve. At any rate they clearly invited this fight.
“Not much – for years we’ve been going on and on about their lack of credibility as spiritual leaders, because of the sexual abuse scandal. Maybe they have given up on that and are trying out a fresh angle.”
They certainly are fishing for something. Lost as they clearly are. And attractive, intelligent laywomen don’t seem to be able to help them out of their quagmire.
Not to lower the level of the above conversation, but watching from the cheapseats and listening to weeks of rhetoric, including some progressive bishops’ backlash at the USCCB’s “Fortnight to Freedom”, which our parish is supporting with a ‘Patriotic Rosary’???, I can’t help wondering why all of this hullabaloo is going on. Roman Catholics, who if they are honestly practicing the Faith they Profess, will make the right decision for themselves, regardless of what any legislation may say. Catholics, on the other hand have little ‘religious freedom’ within our church.
Preaching the faith at mass and letting the faithful (we do, after all have free choice and can make our own decisions based on what our church teaches and sometimes necessarily tempered with the reality of our lives) make their own choices does not abrogate our side of the State/Church relationship. However, using the bully pulpit to attempt to effect legislation that effects many more people than RC members does.
I do not believe that you can legislate morality… ?whose morality? Not to enter the thorny world of Moral Absolutism, but where do we get permission from millions of other Americans to speak for them? Why hasn’t the population of the US been given an opportunity to vote to outlaw abortion, contraception, getting tubes tied or vasectomies, civil unions and same-sex marraiges? Republicans have been promising for years to abolish these atrocities. Who among them has actually co-sponsored legislation to have a constitutional amendment to take care of these items once and for all?
Guess the US citizenry wouldn’t stand for it… and don’t kid yourselves, Catholics themselves practice artificial birth control, have abortions, and are engaging in same sex relationships.
Does anyone here actually believe that the mass exodus of Catholics is merely because of the aggregious clerical sexual behavior?
Sometimes I tell myself that I remain a Catholic despite the church, and I suspect that, truth be acknowledged, some of you do too.
My dear Jesuit professors taught me 3 things that have remained with me for over 40 years… 1. Question Everything, take nothing for granted just because someone in a collar says it. 2. Ask yourself if it passes the common-sense test. 3. Read, think, pray, study, inform yourself and, in the final analysis, decide for yourself. IF still in doubt, refer to #1.
How much of this problem is from Rome? How much of it is smoke and mirrors, and if it is, then what is being hidden? Finally, when did the vast population of the US hand to us the right to represent their best interests, I must have been sick that day.
Thank you all. Your articles educate me, your learned comments enlighten me, and I apologise for my ignorance, ex post facto.
Joe, The problem is that the Bishops are not simply proposing that the definition of religion offered by the HHS/Obama Administration is too narrow to be the stipulated political definition. They are also saying that it is discriminatory. So, it’s wrong AND prejudicial, which translates into Obama not only being wrong about the nature of public religion, but also being anti-Catholic. This is why it is problematic to talk about a “secularist agenda” in the same breath you are trying to raise the perfectly reasonable issue of how to define what counts as “religious” in a pluralist society that includes many religions as well as people of no religion. A “Fortnight for Freedom” suggests that your group is being persecuted, not that you are having a reasonable disagreement about matters of public policy. Once people take on the mantle of oppression, reason gives way to revolution. Is that really what the Bishops want?
The HHS mandate deals with the obligations of an employer to its employees. Therefore, the regulations are not involved in defining “religion” but “religious employers” who should be exempted from some obligations because of conflicts with their religious beliefs.
The regulations do not say that hospitals, universities and charities are not works of religion.
The regulations do say that there are two kinds of religious employers:
1. Those whose employees are primarily of the same faith as the employer
2. Those whose employees can be of any faith, or none.
In the regulations, the first group is completely exempt from the contraception requirement. They are identified in the regulations as “religious employers”
The second group is also completely exempt from the contraception requirement, but their employees will be able to obtain free contraception from a third party though some other arrangement yet to be defined. This group is defined in the regulations as “non-profit organizations with a religious objection to contraception coverage”
Since the distinction between the two groups is in who they employ, the argument that this amounts to a definition of religion seems misplaced.
The exact wording is:
non-profit organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage
See here for the source :
http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/Files2/02102012/20120210-Preventive-Services-Bulletin.pdf
I jusr want to referece E.J. Dionne discussing his new book at America’s new podcast
because
the emohases on balance, the common good, honest histotical perspective and IMOthe importance of the Church in expressing or not expressing these is vital to its meassage, including how well “religious liberty” is perceived.How rge Church touches us as we develop and mature is quite different today from my youth – or Dionne’s
The secularism of the day, in many varities, should challenge the Church to be a voice of the comon good in our plutalistic society.
Susan and Bernard underscore how questionable that effort is today.
If this is a war, it’s a very odd war, in which one side claims not to be fighting at all and the other battles by itself, thrusting hypothetical swords at theortetical windmills. Sure, those windmills could pose real problems if and when they’re ever real, but for now, the scarecrow in the garden needs taking care of, and the so-called Enemy is willing to talk, so why all the thrusting about when talking is the challenge at hand?
Disagreements too often end in wars because of misunderstanding. It never hurts to try to understand the other side, something very unfashionable among the rightwing right now, but something the Church committed herself to at Vatican II.
When the President offered his compromise last February, he left the HHS definition “as is” for a reason, but that reason seems clearly pragmatic, not ideological, certainly not a sign that he wants an ongoing war with the Church. If he’d simply declared all church-related institutions to be synonymous with churches, and thereby *exempt* from the mandate, all their female employees would then *lose* something the mandate had promised would be theirs, i.e., contraception coverage without copays. Instead, he proposed letting those employees keep that privilege via their right to negotiate directly with their insurance companies for contracepiton coverage, while the institutions themselves would be granted their rights of conscience in not having to pay for something that violated their consciences.
There may, in fact, be a reason to fight this fight someday, but considering this government’s willingness to negotiate over this issue this time around, I’d say it’s long past time to go to the negotiating table. Warding off war is far better than fighting one, no matter what the ideologues and partisans and windmill warriors may think.
When the President offered his compromise last February, he left the HHS definition “as is” for a reason, but that reason seems clearly pragmatic, not ideological, certainly not a sign that he wants an ongoing war with the Church.
Beverly Bailey, it is true that the HHS definition of fully-exempt employers was left unchanged, but the compromise offered created another category of exempt organizations in order to meet two goals:
That second category covers Catholic Hospitals, Universities, Charities and similar non-profit organizations.
Combining the two categories would have raised the question of whether all or no employees of the combined group got access to free contraception through a method that didn’t involve the employer. By keeping the groups separate, Chancery and parish employees can be excluded from free contraception while hospital employees get access to it.
Realistically, HHS is in the middle trying to find a compromise between the Church and groups that feel strongly that employees who want it should have access to free contraception – and that it is a legitimate preventative health service.
Interpreting that as hatred for the Church, as some have, is counterproductive.
Eric @ 6/29/2012 – 12:57 pm : how about something like legal “marriage” versus religious “matrimony?”
If you poll those of us who are pushing for same-sex marriage, that is what we want. I suspect that a large majority of us simply do not care about a religious matrimonial ceremony.
If folks can’t live with that, then can the term “marriage” when it comes to the granting of secular rights, benefits and responsibilities, and substitute “unions” for “marriage.” The religious organizations are welcome to offer whatever they want to call it, but it DOES NOT serve as a substitute for what the state offers or acts as an agent of the state, just an add-on that is strictly voluntary for all concerned. Many European countries with deep Catholic roots (current practice is, of course, another issue) have survived well under these procedures.
Johathan Davis’ parish is supporting Freedom Foolishness with a ‘Patriotic Rosary’. Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco has a “Goddess Rosary” every Wednesday night (http://www.herchurch.org/id8.html)
Given the choice between the GR and the PR, I’ll side with the Lutherans anytime.
Amen!
I have a question:
CJ Roberts tells us in his bombshell decision that the Constitution does not allow the government to force anyone to buy anything. Does that mean it can’t force the bishops to buy contraception insurance for their employees?
I might object to certain marriages for other reasons, but how does preventing others from marrying have anything at all to do with my own religious freedom?
Claire,
This is the classic libertarian argument, thoroughly repudiated by Catholicism. We are all responsible for each other; it certainly does have an impact on you and perhaps more importantly, your “others”. If you would not engage in the behavior for whatever reason, you have an obligation to speak up as your brothers keeper, not avoid or minimize the issue by saying it has no impact on you.
Ann Olivier, HHS has said that they will not require “non-profit organizations with religious objections to providing contraception coverage” to provide it.
They have said that employees of those organizations will be able to get free contraception from third parties. They haven’t yet announced the details of how that will work – but it’s only a few days since the cutoff date for suggestions from the public closed.
The HHS does require other employers to provide the contraception coverage to their employees. The same argument that CJ Roberts applied to individual policies would resolve the employer-provided policy question if it came up. The employer can pay a tax penalty and not provide health insurance to its employees – so it’s not actually required to buy insurance – let alone insurance with contraception coverage.
The First Amendment does not make government the Bishop’s agent to enforce Church law against all persons employed by or associated with institutions, or against an institution itself, over which Bishops hold or assert religious privileges or rights.
On the other hand, the Amendment limits laws that impinge upon a person’s freedom of worship and their freedom to associate with others as a “church.”
The dividing line between the opposing considerations is a matter of public law — as determined by statute, regulation, or the courts of the nation. It is not a matter of Church law defined by the Bishops. Why, then, have the Bishops declined to propose a regulatory exemption that will protect religious freedom for all persons and every church?
I agree with Eric Bugyes that: “The Bishops need to offer an meaningful alternative to what they perceive to be a “narrow” definition of religion, and they need to convince people that this is the appropriate, universally acceptable definition.”
HARRY
I agree with Eric Bugyis — an apologize for misspelling his name.
HARRY
Secularism vs. religion?
Here in NM(as in next door Colorado) the issue touching most people’s lives are drought, fire, potential floods while making do in a weak economy.
(Sorry about that awful weather that blew East from us also and touches so many lives.)
But Abp. Sheehan carries on his now ever closer ties to Rome and communio episcopi with the Forthight for Freedom. At the same time, the Santa Fe Opera kicks off by playing the National Anthem, stages a “new” Tosca emphasizing the good seculatists vs. the evil Romanist Scarpia and getting less than scintillating reviews for its presentation of Puccini’s glorious music.
The papers are full of John Roberts., some exulting him as a great hero showing how to act for the country, others seeing him as a traitor for forsaking the tea party ideals, and still others as the really stealth conservative, working hard to limit Congres’s power to make meaningful progressive change.
I refernced Dionne, because I think he raised the crucial question that cuts through all this – our commitment, liberal or conservative, or whatever to the common good?
If he is right that the current group of our hierachs has moved too far right on this, their claims on religios liberty ring hollow to many.
John H. –
Thanks. For the life of me I can’t understand how the bishops object to the HHS’ requirement to buy-contraceptives or pay a tax, but they think it’s OK to pay taxes for wars they think are immoral. I do think requiring them to buy the contraceptives would be a violation of their freedom, but they aren’t being consistent about the principles they’re appealing to.
“CJ Roberts tells us in his bombshell decision that the Constitution does not allow the government to force anyone to buy anything.”
So participation in Social Security and Medicare have just become a voluntary venture?
“If you would not engage in the behavior for whatever reason, you have an obligation to speak up as your brothers keeper, not avoid or minimize the issue by saying it has no impact on you.”
Speak up at will, but when you attempt to turn your speech into legal coercion/discrimination, then your role as “brother’s keeper” is not longer accepted.
Jim McCrea, nope – you pay taxes for your Social Security and Medicare Part A benefits and you don’t have a choice. CJ Roberts said that taxes are OK.
Medicare Parts B, C, and D are optional and you don’t have to sign up for them if you don’t want them.
Today’s Democrats and others on the left, seem more like libertines than liberals. They want to party hardy all the time, on someone else’s dime, and not take responsibility for their actions. A few catch phrases sum up their views; “Drugs sex and rock and roll”; “Tear it all down man”; “Do it in the road”.
In addition to either shunning or obscuring objective truth via very strident relativism (they each have or think they are entitled to their own personal “reality”), men and women on the political left have long preferred to party away all day without consequence, and when their BC fails, they want to be allowed to kill the baby. Now they want the Catholic Church to pay for all that, or to tie the woman’s tubes for free, in the Catholic hospital.
In fact most leftists they want much more than just free abortions and free bc pills. The real fellow travellers want free everything; in fact most are in one way or another, just grifters who want to ride on someone else’s back all their lives – plus they want to call the shots too!
Geez!
Ken’s shows how crazy things have gotten in the world of blgdom and catholic blogdom in particular.
Catholics on the left are deeply rooted in the common good, serving the poor and trying to live the Gospel.
Geez indeed.
This reminds me of speeches I hear from the right attacking the POTUS and all things presumably not conservative (read extremist reactionary.)