Wall Street Journal, August 20, 1998
Politics & People
The Religious Right Is About Politics, Not Faith
By ALBERT R. HUNT
"People of faith now play a major role in policy debates and political elections,"--Ralph Reed, former director, Christian Coalition.
"People of faith are regarded as 'second class citizens' and routinely discriminated against by the government . . ."--Gary Bauer, President, Family Research Council.
Whether on the offense or defense, the religious right sets this predicate: If you're with them, you are a person of faith; if you are against them, you're not.
Do Ralph Reed or Gary Bauer believe that the late Martin Luther King or Billy Graham or the activist Catholic bishops or Jewish rabbis--all of whom have played major roles in politics--are not people of faith? Support or opposition to the Christian Coalition or the Family Research Council or the multitude of other religious right organizations has little to do with faith.
"Criticism of the religious right's agenda," says C. Welton Gaddy, head of the Interfaith Alliance and a Baptist minister, "is not an attack on people of faith. It is on the manipulation of people of faith for the purposes of building support for a partisan political agenda."
These are not academic debates; the Christian right, noted conservative writer Christopher Caldwell in an influential Atlantic Monthly piece, is "McGovernizing" the Republican Party: "At the 1996 convention, Christian conservatives moved to make their intraparty advantage permanent and institutional, much as radical and social liberals had done before the 1972 Democratic convention."
The religious right, of course, is hardly the only movement to vilify the motives of any critics. Some African-American organizations and leaders all too often charge that any opposition to their agenda is racist. Nobody engages in this more than Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic black nationalist who charges that his opponents are racist and anti-Muslim, somehow directed by a Jewish conspiracy.
The Christian coalition's Pat Robertson presents a cheerier disposition and has more political influence than his fellow Reverend, Mr. Farrakhan. But his agenda and views are as mean-spirited and out of the mainstream.
He has called for dismantling the Federal Reserve System, said the notion of constitutional separation of church and state is a myth, called for abolishing Halloween (which apparently he believes is a left-wing Satanic conspiracy), suggested God would send "terrorist bombs" or "tornadoes" to the city of Orlando because of a gay pride celebration there and once wrote that feminism not only encouraged lesbianism but also child-killing and witchcraft.
These views are understandably rejected by most of the public; the Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls show only about 15% of the public supports conservative Christian political organizations. That's why the Pat Robertsons want to switch the subject to the supposed anti-Christian or anti-faith motives of the critic.
This is a time-tested tactic by this movement. Rev. Gaddy recalls that when the religious right took over the Southern Baptist convention, their catch phrase was biblical inerrancy--which meant that if you didn't believe in the literal interpretation of the Holy Book, you were anti-Bible. They then went around and asked if people were pro- or anti-Bible. It worked. This year the Southern Baptists, selectively citing biblical authority, revised their church document to call on wives to "submit graciously" to their husbands.
The same sort of demagogic intolerance is central to the religious right's political agenda such as in the diatribe against gays, a top priority. Even someone who knows better, like Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, pandered to the right-wing religious zealots, claiming that homosexuality is a "sin."
Now, there's room for spirited debate between persons of faith over gay marriages, whether gays should serve in the military or be able to adopt children. But one's opinion on these issues doesn't determine whether or not one is a good Christian or a person of faith.
Some of the notorious voting guides put out by the Christian Coalition and others--which supposedly gauge a candidate's commitment to people of faith--are even more egregious. The last election in California, for example, candidates were deemed less committed to faith if they voted against term limits or a Constitutional amendment making it harder to raise taxes or medical saving accounts. The guides never gave scriptural citations.
In Texas, the religious right was more extreme. Among the "Christian" issues, candidates were judged on were a state sales tax on motor vehicles and training teachers to teach phonics in schools. A critic, the Rev. Larry Bethune, assailed the Christian Coalition voting guides for "attaching the name of Christ to partisan issues which have no connection to our biblical faith or Christian discipleship."
The biggest hot-button issue for the religious right in Texas is opposition to mandatory equal funding in all school districts, or the so- called Robin Hood measure. "Under the guise of Christianity, these people are spending most of their resources trying to make sure that poor kids in the Valley (the Hispanic-dominated part of South Texas) don't get the same [education] as kids in Highland Park (the affluent section of Dallas)," says Cecile Richards, founder of the Texas Freedom Network, which seeks to counter the religious right.
Demagoguing and religion aren't a new combination in Texas. More than a half-century ago, Texas Governor Pappy O'Daniel crusaded for English-only in the schools, arguing with unfailing logic that if English "was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for Texas school children." Pappy O'Daniel probably knew he was engaging in sophistry; Pat Robertson may not.