opinions 7 Wrong about the Religious Right Right Hook JJ McCullough, OP Columnist Being a conservative in a liberal school in a liberal province in a liberal country is not always easy. For one, I tend to get asked a lot of questions in a tone of voice that is both patronizing and flabbergasted. “How can you support the Iraq war?” they ask, not out of genuine curiosity, but more out sympathy and confu- sion—the same way the police might ask “how could you drive for 12 miles without noticing the man impaled in your windshield?” The most tiresome question of all, however, is the repeatedly asked query as to how I can support two parties—the Republicans and the Conservatives—that are supposedly crawling with religious nuts. Hard line Christian bigots dominate every aspect of these par- ties, I am told, and to support them means supporting an agenda that wants to wage jihad against women, gays, minorities, and anyone else who doesn’t pass the evangelical litmus test. In recent years, the mainstream media has similarly started to obsess over the perceived influence of the religious right. In part, this is because the media tends to enjoy reporting any stories that exaggerate the sup- posed “weirdness” of conservatives, and in part because the evangelical movement itself has become very media savvy as of late, with their own rock bands, Hollywood-style movies, and mega-church laser light shows. The underlying message is always the same— these religious freaks are organized, gaining influence, and it’s only a matter of time before they fully seize power and drag North America back into the Middle Ages. Personally, I am not a religious person. My parents were both rather disillusioned by their own hardcore Christian upbringings, and, as a result, never bothered to subject me or my sister to any sort of church, ser- mon, or Sunday school. As a result, I don’t form my opinions according to any sort of deep spiritual phi- losophy, but rather my own common sense opinions of right and wrong. That being said, as a secularist, I don’t particularly fear the so-called religious right. Are they a prominent part of the modern North American conservative movement? Absolutely. Are they the only force behind it? Not by a long shot. The religious right, if nothing else, is primarily a movement that is used to justify and support policies made by secular conservative politicians—not the other way around. The most successful policies of any politician are those which can achieve a broad backing of public support. In the case of the right, some of the movement’s most notable victories have been in the fields of taxa- tion, government spending, and law enforcement— areas in which both religious and secular conservatives alike can find common ground. Policies that are decreed solely from the religious establishment, by contrast, are almost always universal flops. In the last two decades alone, Christian activists in the US have unsuccessfully tried to bring prayer into public school, ban swearing and nudity in television and movies, out- law teenagers’ ability to purchase condoms, obtain a federal ban on all forms of abortion, overturn anti-dis- crimination laws protecting gays and lesbians, and, most recently, enshrine a ban on gay marriage in the American constitution. The list is literally a chronicle of defeat and embar- rassment. Far from being a puritan theocracy, the America of today is a country where there are millions of abortions a year, popular culture is crawling with obscenity, homosexuality is more mainstream than ever, teens are having sex all over the place, and Happy Holidays has replaced Merry Christmas as the accept- able way to greet someone on Jesus’ birthday. Not exactly a stellar legacy for the supposedly all-powerful Pat Robertson crew. There is a role for morality in politics; but the most successful moral policies tend to be those which offer calculated, rational solutions to legitimate concerns, and not doctrinate over-reactions to minor disputes. For example, one can oppose gay marriage without demanding homosexual couples be denied all legal partnership rights; and one can object to the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion without simultane- ously ordering a ban on all other forms as well. The religious right will remain a stagnant move- ment, no matter how active their lobbying is, so long as their primary obsession continues to be the promo- tion of eccentric policies to deal with minor issues. True, conservative politicians may throw them a bone now and then in the form of half-assed measures that have no hope of passing (as was the case with the anti-gay marriage amendment); and the media will cer- tainly never shy away from giving breathless coverage every time some obscure school board re-introduces the topic of creationism into the curriculum some- where. But in the end, political power is not defined by empty gestures and sensationalism. The left may like to pretend otherwise, but in most conservative partisan institutions, the secularists are still the dominant ones; meaning, it’s people like me who are in control. Of course, you might find that fact even more disturbing. Internet Dietatorship Left Overs lain Reeve, OP Columnist A great man once said that the Internet is an amazing place. It allows countless numbers of people from across a massive number of countries, languages, and cultures to come together and exchange hopes, beliefs, and ideas about pornography. But in all seriousness, the Internet is more than a venue for perverts and horny college newspaper writers. For the 14 percent of people in the world who have stable access to the web, it has been a life altering experience. Boundary-shattering innovations have occurred in the ways we communicate, do business, and entertain ourselves. Two years ago, a UN committee studying the Internet set the goal of universal Internet access for all people of the world by 2015. As this group pre- pares to meet again this week, things are somewhat bleak. The upcoming conference is set to focus on how to improve the current situation and bring the Internet to a wider audience. Left off of the agenda, due to a last minute agreement, is the issue of the management of the Internet lying entirely under US auspices. Many countries have raised concerns over the fact that all web domains are controlled by one company—the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)—which answers directly to the US government. Does this mean the US could, if so inclined, suspend domain access to countries that offend them—effectively crippling the country’s Internet presence? The short answer is yes. If we look at most major international agree- ments over issues such as international trade, air space regulations, copyright law, geosystem control, etc.— there is a clear pattern. These agreements are reached by all concerned states. Sure, there are power plays in place; sure, the richest or most powerful states still have the greatest say in who gets what, when, and where; but at least there is some democracy, some dis- persion of power. Leaving anything with as many social and political ramifications as the Internet in the hands of a single state—regardless of which one—is a dangerous gam- bit. While the US has argued that democratizing con- trol of the Net would lead to an increase in censor- ship, this is almost certainly more likely when the views of one state dictate the direction the Internet takes. Lastly, if our goal is the spread of the Internet to all parts of the world, then spreading the control of it is essential. With many countries in control, preference is diminished and concessions must be made. If the US wants to limit the growth of the net in states they dislike and encourage it in those they like, other con- trolling parties would heavily limit their ability to do this. The further proliferation of free information, border crushing business possibilities, and the increase in free communication and media worldwide would heavily benefit all countries of the world. These ends should be our focus, not petty and fearful power-plays.