Leaders of the Religious Right aren’t real happy with the current situation. President Barack Obama remains popular. Same-sex marriage is now legal in six states, and others are considering it. Abortion is still legal, and public schools aren’t pushing fundamentalist Christianity.

What to do? Form a federation!

Several Religious Right organizations came together June 30 here in Washington to announce the formation of the “Freedom Federation” and to unveil a “Declaration of American Values,” a document reflecting the same obsessions that have animated the Religious Right for decades: opposition to abortion, opposition to gay rights, xenophobia, opposition to church-state separation, etc.

The event didn’t get much ink in the secular press, but The Christian Post ran a piece quoting several of the major players. I was amused by former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell’s insistence that the Federation is interested in “a process of addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division.”

So the Religious Right now intends to bring people together by highlighting the same issues it has exploited for decades to divide Americans? Call me skeptical.

Groups joining this effort include the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Liberty University, the Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, Vision America, Concerned Women for America, the American Family Association, Catholic Online, the Traditional Values Coalition and a host of lesser lights. The federation doesn’t plan to hire a staff or open and office, and it’s unclear what the next step will be. I have been unable to even find a Web site for this federation.

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, who specializes in a daily dose of snark, seemed under whelmed. Dredging up the inevitable “Star Trek” comparison, Milbank seemed suspicious of the Federation’s claims that it is politically neutral.

“While ‘we have no allegiance as a federation to either party,’ as Blackwell put it, federation politics are no secret,” wrote Milbank. “Among the many others signed on to the federation are Gary Bauer’s Campaign for Working Families, which is at the moment working on a campaign to ‘stop Obama’s socialism’; Lafferty’s Traditional Values Coalition, which is trying to stop ‘Obamunists’ from destroying private health care; Exodus International, which promises ‘freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ’; Morning Star Ministries, which recently hosted the Spiritual Warfare Conference; and the American Family Association, which is promoting a boycott of Pepsi for supporting ‘homosexual activists.’”

In other words, despite the fancy name and all of the rhetoric, this really is your father’s Religious Right. Yawn. Nothing new here.

Milbank noted that several of the speakers at the event made “Star Trek” comparisons, trying to hitch their movement to the popular summer film. I haven’t seen the movie, but as a kid I did enjoy the original “Trek.” I have some advice for activists interested in opposing the tired and repressive agenda of the Religious Right: Ready the photon torpedoes.

Northern Kentucky, however, may have us beat. Petersburg is the home of the nation’s largest Creation Museum.

Since its grand opening in 2007, 750,000 people have passed through its doors to be welcomed by an animatronics display of a young girl feeding a carrot to a squirrel as two dinosaurs stand behind her looking on. (It’s a strange picture considering that the first human lived no less than 65 million years after dinosaurs became extinct!)

This week a group of paleontologists walked through those doors to be greeted by Bonnie Mills, a guest service employee. “Praise God, we’re excited to have you here,” she exclaimed.

Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.

The University of Cincinnati was hosting the North American Paleontological Convention. Scientists from across the county had the opportunity to present their latest research and their biggest discoveries about the origins of life and our ancient past.

During a break from scientific lectures, about 70 paleontologists boarded a bus to take a trip to the Creation Museum, just across the Ohio River.

“I [was] speechless,” said Derek E.G. Briggs, director of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale,” in an interview with The New York Times, after his visit. “It’s rather scary.”

According to its Web site, the Creation Museum “brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of Knowledge and Good and Evil.

“Don’t miss a chance to enjoy the wonders of God’s creation in our Petting Zoo.… Prepare to Believe,” the site advertises.

Inside the museum, dinosaurs are depicted as riding in Noah’s ark, and placards explain that it was the biblical flood that broke apart the continents and settled them in their current locations. (Science suggests otherwise, concluding that the ancient supercontinent Pangaea fragmented and shifted over billions of years.)

The paleontologists thought the museum misrepresented history and “ridiculed them and their work and unfairly blamed them for the ills of society.” For example, Lisa E. Park, a professor at the University of Akron, was dismayed by what she saw.

“I think they should rename the museum – not the Creation Museum, but the Confusion Museum,” she said.

Jason Rosenhouse, a mathematician at James Madison University who frequently blogs on evolution issues “hate[s] that it exists.” Tongue in cheek he wrote, “But, given that it exists, you can have a good time here. They put on a very good show if you can handle the suspension of disbelief.”

"Dino Den" at the Creation Museum

While the paleontologists were able to make jokes about the sheer impossibility of the idea of God creating the world in six days just 6,000 years ago, Briggs expressed his concerns about the implication of the museum on children and public education.

“You worry about the youngsters,” he said.

Parents and clergy may espouse creationism in the home or the church, but when it comes to academia and the public school system, our citizenry and our government must ensure the integrity of science. The Religious Right is still working diligently to drive evolution and legitimate scientific study from our public schools and replace them with religious ideas based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Creationism and “intelligent design” are dogmatic doctrines that are at odds with sound science. While most clergy find no conflict between religion and science, fundamentalist preachers have spoken out in opposition to evolution since Charles Darwin first published his findings. Consequently, our public schools have been a battleground in the fight between secular science and fundamentalism.

We look to the Constitution for a resolution of the conflict. In a number of cases, most recently Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Supreme Court has made it more than clear that creationism and intelligent design are not constitutionally permissible theories to teach in science classes.

Plain and simple, the Creation Museum has the right to exist as a sort of “Disneyland,” according to paleontologists like Dr. Tamaki Sato. But creationism must not be taught as a legitimate scientific theory in our public schools. The Religious Right campaign to do so is one of the greatest challenges to the separation of church and state.

When planning my next vacation, I’ll take Disneyland over the Creation Museum. I’d much rather visit Mickey Mouse than an animatronic Noah. At least the guy inside the Mickey costume knows that he’s nothing more than an entertainer.

Numerous reports indicate that Kern and her supporters plan to publicly sign a document dubbed the “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation for Morality” declaring the United States a Christian nation tomorrow at the state capitol.

I’ve read Kern’s resolution, and it’s a whole lot of crazy crammed into one document. Dissecting the whole thing would take all day – and who has that much time?

But let me hit some highlights. For starters, I was struck by some of the “Whereases.” One states that “our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis” and another asserts that the United States “has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery.”

The resolution goes on to assert that “the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built” and blasts President Barack Obama for refusing “to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer” – even though Obama issued a Prayer Day proclamation.

But it’s the proclamation’s historical section that really takes Sally off the rails. It’s a veritable font of ignorance, studded with quotes from Founders that are either wrenched from context or made up.

For example, the resolution quotes James Madison as saying, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government…but upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

I had to shake my head when I saw that old chestnut being dusted off once again.

The quote contradicts almost everything Madison ever said about separation of church and state. It is almost certainly bogus, and even the notorious “Christian nation” propagandist David Barton admitted he could not confirm it and advised people to stop using it – 13 years ago!

Sally, Sally, Sally! It’s bad enough that you promote this nonsense, but when you sprinkle it with glaring errors of fact and omission, you only end up embarrassing yourself.

A lobbyist at the Oklahoma branch of the American Civil Liberties Union did yeoman’s work researching Sally’s quotes and putting them in their proper context (or debunking them as fallacious).

On its Web site, the ACLU calls Kern’s resolution “a hate-filled diatribe…full of inaccuracies.” I have to agree.

Reading it, one thing struck me: Kern sure doesn’t like our country very much. According to her, we’re nothing but a bunch of sex-obsessed porn addicts who promote abortion, mock marriage and engage in “many other forms of debauchery.”

Speaking as a proud American who is looking forward to celebrating the 233rd birthday of the nation with a good, old-fashioned family reunion and picnic, I’m shocked that Kern thinks so little of our country. Sure, we have our faults – but I wouldn’t live anywhere else.

I’d like to borrow a line conservatives used to throw around quite a lot and ask Sally: If it’s so awful here, if you hate it so much, why don’t you leave?

Last month, researcher Jeff Sharlet penned a disturbing article for Harper’s magazine about efforts to “Christianize” the military. Newsweek ran a similar story online on June 20. The articles attracted a lot of attention and put the issue in the spotlight once again.

Part of the fallout is an interesting video, produced by Truthdig.com, featuring Sharlet and other commentators speaking out about the recent developments. Watching it, I was struck by one thing: Too many military personnel refuse to admit there is a problem.

Consider the Air Force chaplain interviewed in the piece. He’s not at all concerned. Yet he should be. The video features footage shot at Fort Jackson in Columbia, S.C., that lays bare exactly what the problem is: Young recruits are being funneled into fundamentalist Christian ministries, intentionally or not, by military policies.

The video shows footage of a Christian rock concert held at Fort Hood. No one was required to attend, but one soldier helpfully explains what the other option was: staying behind and cleaning the barracks. (Some choice, huh?)

Once at the concert, the new recruits – young men and women away from home, perhaps in an uncertain position, perhaps nervous and scared – are bombarded with fundamentalist Christianity and urged to get saved. The atmosphere of the event is highly charged, emotional. Many break down.

I understand that the military has to make accommodations for the religious needs of soldiers. That’s a far cry from urging them to adopt new or different beliefs. Why on earth are services like this – which are clearly designed to convert a vulnerable population to a specific type of Christianity – being held on military bases?

In another part of the video, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft refuses to believe that two evangelists are traveling with an Army unit in Afghanistan – despite footage that aired on a Chrisitian network bragging about it.

The footage shows plainly what it going on: Private citizens have been “embedded” with a military unit and are distributing Bibles (written in the native language) to the population – despite a military order that prohibits this type of proselytism.

How did these evangelists get hooked up with this unit? Obviously, something like this doesn’t just happen. It’s part of a plan. Who in the military signed off on this, and why hasn’t it been stopped?

But wait, there’s more. Chris Rodda, a researcher with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), recently reported that the Department of Defense has permitted a retired Army colonel and chaplain named Jim Ammerman to endorse chaplains on behalf of the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches (CFGC), even though Ammerman has a history of attacking other religions and making extreme statements.

The CFGC’s newsletter in September of 2008 went so far as to imply that four Democratic U.S. senators who voted to oppose making English the official U.S. language were should be put on trial and hanged.

The MRFF has demanded that the Department of Defense revoke the CFGC’s authority to endorse chaplains. It’s a necessary step, but I’m not holding my breath. My guess is that top military brass will continue to insist that everything is just peachy keen.

Could things get any worse? Well, yes.

President Barack Obama has nominated U.S. Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.) to be Secretary of the Army. McHugh, a five-term member of the House, seems to have little respect for the separation of church and state. During his time in the House, McHugh has repeatedly cosponsored school prayer amendments and even voted for a measure that would have stripped the federal courts of their ability to hear cases challenging the insertion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

When efforts were launched in Congress to crack down on aggressive proselytism by military chaplains, McHugh was on the wrong side, voting with the Religious Right.

Every time Americans United or other organizations raise this issue, Religious Right groups accuse us of overreacting. In fact, this spate of recent incidents proves again that the problem of heavy-handed fundamentalist influence in the military is real.

As numerous commentators have pointed out, fundamentalist control of the military cuts against American interests. The last thing we want to do is create the impression that our “Christian army” is ready to square off against the Muslim world in a new crusade.

The situation is crying out for reform. But nothing will be done as long as top military and civilian leaders continue to stick their heads in the sand.

Guess what? You already have.

Those three schools and 52 additional religious and other private schools in the District of Columbia were beneficiaries of the federally funded D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program during the current school year.

If you’re a federal taxpayer, some of your money has already gone to pay for tuition at parochial and other private schools in the nation’s capital.

The program, pushed through Congress by former President George W. Bush, was supposed to be a five-year “experiment” in school choice. The allotted time period for it has already expired, but proponents are lobbying hard for more tax dollars to keep it going.

Objective scholars say the D.C. voucher pilot has shown no significant academic results, and many observers think it diverts attention and resources from reforms within the public school system. Church-state separationists regard the subsidy as a clear violation of the principle that no taxpayer dollars should go to institutions that engage in religious instruction or hiring bias.

The National Coalition for Public Education, a broad array of religious, educational, civil rights and civil liberties groups, recently urged Congress to defund the program.

The letter, signed by 39 organizations, asked the House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government to “oppose the continuation of the already expired, failed D.C. private school voucher pilot program.”

Signers ranged from Americans United, the National PTA and the NAACP to the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the Union for Reform Judaism and African American Ministers in Action.

The battle over this issue in Congress is likely to be fierce. The various sectarian and ideological groups that make up the voucher lobby are well funded and politically savvy. They see the D.C. voucher scheme as a wedge to open up broader religious school funding measures.

The voucher lobby has powerful friends in Congress. U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is an aggressive supporter of the D.C. voucher plan, and some Republican leaders are pushing for it too.

The Obama administration has expressed opposition to any broadening of the D.C. plan but supports continued funding for students already enrolled in it.

Lieberman says he was promised a floor vote in the Senate on the voucher program this year. One may also come in the House.

If you haven’t yet contacted your members of Congress on the topic, now would be a good time to do so.

The Roanoke Times reported that around 100 people showed up at the Penn Forest Worship Center in Roanoke, Va., to listen to speakers peddle “Christian nation” propaganda.

LFRM, led by Bethlehem, Ga.-based religious broadcaster and pastor Jody Hice, preaches that America was found by Christians and that the country is based on biblical precepts. Supporters believe there is no such thing as church-state separation, and reproductive choice, feminism and gay rights are responsible for the declining morals of our country.

This was the first rally the group held in Virginia, but others have been held or are planned in North Carolina and Georgia.

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a Texas evangelist and critic of church-state separation, will be speaking at most of the rallies, as he did last night.

“In my lifetime,” Scarborough said, “We have gone from ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ and ‘Leave it to Beaver’ to ‘Sex in the City’ and ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.’

“America is on the verge of destruction,” he blustered. “You, beloved, are the hope.”

Though rallies such as this one often fly under the media’s radar, they’re part of an aggressive grassroots movement to train fundamentalists to organize, run for office and push a “biblical worldview” on all Americans through government action. Call it boot camp for theocrats.

Take, for example, Worldview Weekend’s “Code Blue” rallies, which are held in cities across the country every weekend. According the group’s Web site, these rallies “seek to train adults and teens to understand the times, acquire a Biblical worldview for all areas of life and contend for the faith. Code blue means that there is no time to waste, an emergency exists, and a pro-active response is necessary in order to save lives.”

Another outfit called American Majority, run by former congressman Jim Ryun’s son, Ned,  sponsors events that train candidates, local activists and college students on how to get elected to public office and use their political power to push a right-wing, Religious Right-oriented agenda.  (Sources in Oklahoma tell us that several Religious Right legislators in the Sooner State are “graduates” of this training program.)

Another group, the U.S. Pastor Council, also leads “Christian nation” training. On the group’s Web site, it states: “We must commit to training every man, woman and child in our congregation in a comprehensive Biblical worldview that ‘connects the dots’ between Scripture and our social and political decisions, as well as our true Christian heritage as a nation, the text and content of the U.S. Constitution and how each can ‘put wheels on it.’”

And the Virginia Renewal Project is one of several state “renewal” projects that do the same thing. The group invites pastors to “Rediscovering God in America” briefings in order to continue the “daily struggle to reclaim the foundation that has kept America strong for so many generations.”

So while a mere 100 people in attendance at LFRM’s rally in Roanoke seems hardly threatening to church-state separation, the event there is only one of many that calls for our country to abandon our secular democracy and move as far as possible toward a fundamentalist theocracy.

When Religious Right leaders talk about a “biblical worldview,” they really mean they want to impose their fundamentalist view of the Bible on everyone in the world through government action.

As the Rev. Barry W. Lynn , Americans United executive director, told The Roanoke Times, “It’s very dangerous, and it’s proven to be disastrous” across the world when religion gets too cozy with government, Lynn said.

Groups such as Let Freedom Ring, he said, “preach a false history.”

Lynn’s right, and Americans who care about freedom need to stand ready to resist “worldview” warriors when they invade your community.

When we arrived at AEI, we were greeted warmly, but the many kind smiles quickly turned to grimaces as we began to discuss the constitutionality of religiously motivated programs such as “faith-based” initiatives and tuition tax credits for religious schools. A tablemate of ours even refused to shake my hand at the end of the luncheon, obviously too upset over what I thought was merely a polite, political disagreement.

While I was certainly put off by his snub, it was by far the least offensive moment of the afternoon. The speakers, Marvin Olasky of World Magazine and provost of King’s College, and Jim Skillen, president of the Center for Public Justice spoke on the idea of Christian salvation and the maintenance of the traditional family. (You know the Religious Right’s definition: one man, one woman and as many well-behaved, socially conservative children as possible.)

Olasky drew some very strange connections. It seemed to me as if the gist of his speech was this: The government is not equipped to pursue social justice. Social justice is anchored in the Religious Right vision of a 1950s family. Furthermore, the Religious Right gets to define what a family is — no gay families or single parents need apply.

Marvin Olasky

While the event was billed as a reflection on “Social Justice, Free Markets and Evangelicals,” very little of it was of actual consequence to those of us engaged in the church-state arena. The speakers merely harped on the importance of maintaining traditional family values and disregarded any questions asked about faith-based initiatives or the wall of separation between religion and government.

While the conference held few attractions for me, a recent piece published in Olasky’s World Magazine does have some legitimate church-state implications.

In the article “Ready to Compete,” Olansky interviewed John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, who recently co-authored the book God is Back. Micklethwait and Wooldridge, both writers for The Economist, explored the thesis of their argument: Religion is strengthened by the separation of church and state. The marketplace of ideas — and the competition between faiths in a society wherein the government does not dictate conscience — leads to a stronger connection between the individual and his or her religious community.

“A lot of religious people thought [separation] would undermine religion,” explained Wooldridge. “That didn’t happen, because as soon as you separate them you get competition and you get religion even stronger.”

During the conference, I had the opportunity to ask Olasky whether the authors’ argument had given him any pause or caused him to reconsider his staunch support for “faith-based” initiatives. (Olasky was an occasional advisor to George W. Bush and the intellectual force behind Bush’s faith-based frenzy).

He dodged my question, answering instead that his is a “strong supporter of the separation of church and state.”

I’ve never met a staunch separationist who believes that government should subsidize sectarian causes rather than secular endeavors. As a matter of fact, when Olasky asked the crowd if anyone would chose to pay taxes if he or she had the opportunity to donate that money to religious organizations instead, I raised my hand (proud to pay taxes that support public education and public health initiatives). He joined the rest of the audience in looking at me as if I were some sort of social pariah.

While Olasky may call himself a “compassionate conservative,” I found his views to be the same old line the Religious Right has been peddling for years. His views on the family are out of touch with modern life, and he has a regressive outlook on social programs. Olasky seems to believe the government should play a very limited role in helping the poor and those in need.

In his opinion, a cot or warm bowl of soup provided by the government would be “socially unjust” unless it also included the fostering of interpersonal relationships between the individual in need, the righteous benefactor and perhaps even the Lord himself. It reminds me of a Dickens novel!

Olasky needs to realize that Dickens lived long ago, and people in England have long since rejected the idea of leaving the poor to the mercies of the church – as have people here.

As we left the event, I asked Sam what he thought about religion and politics in America as compared to Britain.

“Religion is a non-issue there — abortion, gay rights, all non issues,” Sam explained. “There is no Religious Right.

“While there is technically an established church,” he continued, “I think people are freer where I live. Everyone has the same rights. Your country’s denial of people’s basic rights and liberties due to their religion or sexual orientation is just mental.”

If Olasky’s view ever becomes dominant in this country, things will only get worse. In that case, Sam might want to prepare to have me come over for a permanent vacation.

One person I did not think to include was Ralph Reed, the one-time wunderkind who served as executive director of Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition from 1989 to 1997.

I didn’t include Reed because, well, I figured he’s all washed up. Reed ran for lieutenant governor of Georgia in 2006, a position he was supposed to win easily. That slot, in turn, would be his stepping stone to higher office.

It didn’t work out that way. Reed’s ties to disgraced casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff became an issue during the campaign. Enmeshed in that scandal, Reed lost the race to a relative unknown.

After that, Reed tried his hand at writing a political thriller titled Dark Horse. But Reed’s career as a novelist also fell flat. The book tanked. (You can buy hardback copies on www.half.com, my favorite site for used books, for 75 cents.) Reed did some evangelical outreach work for George W. Bush, Mitt Romney and John McCain during their presidential campaigns but has otherwise kept a low profile.

So Reed is returning to what he knows best: running a Religious Right group. U.S. News blogger Dan Gilgoff has the scoop. Reed has formed a new organization he calls the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

“This is not your daddy’s Christian Coalition,” Reed boasted in an interview with Gilgoff. “It’s got to be more brown, more black, more female, and younger. It’s critical that we open the door wide and let them know if they share our values and believe in the principles of faith and marriage and family, they’re welcome.”

Oh, please! We’ve been down this road before.

I was at the National Press Club in Washington on Jan. 30, 1997, when Reed announced the “Samaritan Project,” an effort by the Christian Coalition to reach out to blacks, Hispanics and even Democrats to combat poverty through “faith-based” efforts.

I was more than a little cynical, knowing that the Coalition had no track record on helping the poor. In fact, opposing legal abortion, bashing gays and beating on public schools constituted the bulk of the group’s work.

Despite all of the hype, the Samaritan Project turned out to be nothing more than an effort to recruit minorities into the Republican Party. (Wow, what a surprise!) It made no progress on this front and was quickly abandoned, and Reed left the Coalition to start a political consulting firm nine months later. So much for helping the poor.

I could go on and on about the sleazy stunts Reed has pulled over the years, but I suspect that’s more than even most readers of this blog would want. While it’s always possible that Reed could emerge as a viable Religious Right leader, I don’t think it’s going to work this time. He’s lugging around an awful lot of baggage.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition may provide Reed with a paycheck for a few years, but I doubt it will achieve much more. If I’m right, we’ll all have cause to be thankful. The last thing this country needs is another meddlesome and extreme Religious Right group trying to tell us how to run our lives.

AU, noting that recognition and funding were still being extended to a Republican club on campus, asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the matter. Liberty University, as a tax-exempt institution, could not lawfully favor one party over another, Americans United asserted.

Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. went ballistic. He even accused AU of being partisan and ordered his legal lackeys to draft a phony complaint to the IRS.

But now it turns out that Falwell is essentially admitting that we were right all along and agreeing that the university has an obligation to treat both clubs equally.

Falwell has announced a new policy at Liberty. Under its terms, both the Republican and Democratic clubs will be considered “unofficial.” Such clubs can use the university’s name but won’t receive any funding.

The students who run Liberty’s Democratic club say they think the compromise could work. Americans United considers the new policy a big step in the right direction but intends to keep an eye on the situation. The one thing we’ve learned over the years about the Falwells is that they don’t always keep their word. They are quite capable of saying one thing and doing another, so we’ll remain on alert.

As Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn told the Lynchburg News & Advance, “We’ll have to see how that plays out…. But I do think that this is a pretty stark recognition that the previous policy was dangerously wrong, dangerous to your tax exemption.”

What’s most frustrating about this incident is the way Falwell behaved. When AU and others spoke out against Liberty’s policy, he hotly insisted he had done nothing wrong and went on the attack. He blamed others for making trouble and refused to accept an iota of the blame.

Where did all of that huffing and puffing lead him? At the end of the day, Falwell ended up adopting an equal treatment policy that Americans United and other critics pushed for all along.

Jerry Jr., it seems, hasn’t learned one thing from his father’s missteps. That’s disappointing but perhaps not surprising. But not to worry. AU intends to keep a close eye on the Liberty chancellor, and his brother, Jonathan, who runs the TV ministry, just to make sure they stay on the right side of the law.