"BLESSED BE THE FRUIT"

“BLESSED BE THE FRUIT”

Words & photo by Amiyah Golden

What is the objective when voices mingle together to chant the phrase, "Make America Great Again"?

The inquiry stands because the wonder of a time period considered “great” for some America plagues the minds of many.

Was it the time when women held no rights and couldn’t vote? Or when tribes of people were violently ejected from their homelands to produce free labor, endure physical and sexual assault, and be stripped of their rights? Or was it when “conquistadors” were praised for stealing land and ethnically cleansing groups of people?

Or is the phrase a war-cry for assimilation and coveted bigotry?

Now, there are a few claims of considerable wins in American history such as:

Roe v. Wade.

The 19th amendment.

The legalization of gay and interracial marriage.

Simone Biles becoming the most decorated gymnast in history… and many other accomplishments but each comes with as a necessary retort to prolonged oppression.

Having to armor up in a fight for your natural born rights seems to undercut the “greatness” of American democracy. And while progress has been made, there is no denying that the threat of repeal looms over the heads of many Americans due to the modern-day Conservative stance that is represented by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, creator of the slogan, “Make America Great Again.” In doing so, Trump has spearheaded a movement that has emboldened extremists to uncloak their leaden beliefs that hone true to the founding of this country.

For those who can’t neatly compartmentalize into the mold that was originally shaped for the successors of this country — white and male — it can be hard to find the optimism in the future plans lined up to aid in returning America back to its “values.” The same values that have historically displaced multiple minority groups, taken away women’s rights and upheld white American imperialism, while empowering Christian nationalism? (Oh, and the racism… can’t forget the racism.)

Project 2025 now serves as the tangible synopsis of future propositions that are at the ready for establishment if the Republican nominee is elected.

While Trump has denied his own involvement in Project 2025 by posting to his social media platform Truth Social stating, “I know nothing about Project 2025,” and “I have no idea who is behind it.” He was quoted speaking about the Heritage Foundation – the organization leading the endeavors – and its proposal at a dinner in 2022 where he affirmed the operation saying on NBC News, “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”

While Paul Dans has stepped down as of July 2024 as the director of Project 2025, he served as chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during Trump’s term and former official Russell Vought was responsible for writing a “key” chapter in the spread. His interpersonal ties seem to continue to connect.

Via The Heritage Foundation’s website, they exist to “champion policy solutions that benefit all Americans.”

The sentiment seems to be there but the actualization of the implications of Project 2025 do not exist to benefit “ALL” Americans.

They also coin the term freedom as a dire obligation, but that freedom doesn’t seem (again) to apply to the majority.

The 900-page document is summed up to seven bullet-points according to the Project 2025 organization’s homepage, making it appear easily digestible and straightforward. Presented as necessary improvements to Make America Great Again it also serves as a direct threat to U.S. democracy.

According to the BBC, it “calls for the sacking of thousands of civil servants, expanding the power of the president, dismantling the Department of Education, sweeping tax cuts, a ban on pornography, halting sales of the abortion pill, and more.”

CBS also reported Project 2025 “lays out an overhaul of the federal government. The recommendations outlined in the sprawling plan reach every corner of the executive brand, from the Executive Office of the President to the Department of Homeland Security to the little-known Export-Import Bank.”

There are also rational proposals littered in the plan, but it doesn’t outweigh the proposed infringement of rights and benefits such as abortion, education, marital rights and more.

The document also “recommends the next secretary of Health and Human Services get rid of the Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force… and create a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”

It also calls for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reverse the approval of the abortion pill, mifepristone.

Another worrisome section, “The Family Agenda” suggests that the health and human services chief “proudly states that men and women are biological realities” and “married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them.”

The reinstating of the policy put into place by Trump during his term to ban transgender people from serving in the military is also mentioned.

These are just a few Conservative “suggestions” outlined in the lengthy document.

The June 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade was just the bleak beginning of the reality of encroachment.

The realization that the minority in this country truly aren’t safe under the yearning of conservative American values became actualized; not that it’s a new threat by any means but the realization that rights could be so swiftly snatched turned convoluted fantasies into reality in the blink of an eye. With Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas even advising that the court should “reconsider” some of its past rulings such as same-sex relationships and marriages.

Religious dominance and superiority complexes give license to the current Republican fight to upheave civil rights that are deemed “unconstitutional” but who gets to determine when autonomy is impermissible or justified?

It can’t be “The Bible,” as the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause in the United States Constitution explicitly states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

While this is supposed law of the land, we have seen time and time again, where this clause was challenged such as McCreary County v. ACLU with two Kentucky counties arguing that the Ten Commandments are Kentucky’s “precedent legal code” and that the state legislature accepted Christ as the “Prince of Ethics.” While the 2005 Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 against the county, it is a petrifying testament to the ability to hold power and curate legislation that is skewed to personal beliefs.

The Heritage Foundation’s website champions religious freedoms but it can be interpreted as solely with the alignment of one specific belief — Christianity.

In a report by Jay Alan Sekulow via The Heritage Foundation’s website, he focuses on the attack of religious freedoms:

“Politicians mock the faithful’s claims of religious conscience, while government entities and actors treat religious freedom and expression as obstacles to be overcome rather than as important values to protect. A crackdown that can be seen in a variety of different contexts ranging from employers or health care professionals being required to provide or facilitate abortions against the dictates of their faith.”

In a commentary column on The Heritage Foundation website by Hon. Edwin Meese III, former policy chair to former President Ronald Reagan, he stated, “To restore the American experiment in democratic self-government, religious believers need to redouble their civic efforts. For without our active participation in politics, the government will continue to trample on our rights,” adding that “Pastors can lead the way in motivating the faithful to wise stewardship of their citizenship responsibilities.”

Genuinely asking… How do Christian convictions trump (no pun intended) the overall well-being of the greater good?

A self-imposed religious stance on the morality of abortion, gay marriage or sovereignty does not belong in the government and the prospect of such under the guise of the urgent return to American “ideals.”

Late Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah shared his own bias with the idea that no decision “is more fundamental to human existence than the decision we make regarding our relationship to the Divine.” He followed up his statement with that no “act of government can be more intrusive or more invasive of individual autonomy and free will than the act of compelling a person to violate his or her sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Is this not hypocrisy at its best?

The concern of autonomy only seems to apply when the monotheistic belief is confronted.

Is the acceptance the same when a believing woman with the same religious beliefs decides to exercise her right to an abortion? Or when former President Barack Obama, who is Christian, supported the right to an abortion in 2013 stating that the looming concern of restriction would be, “to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century.” Countless Christians have supported the right to an abortion and other challenged rights regardless of their own beliefs. This only incites a growing hunger for power and a desire for a homogenic turn in the culture that is often left unchallenged due to the caterwaul of “theological attacks.”

Furthermore, if the beliefs of the Conservative party are truly under immense attack by the “liberal left” why does the majority choose to support someone who fails to reflect the same Christian values that they’re hellbent on upholding?

SCAN THE QR CODE TO READ THE REST OF THE STORY