Party of God Watch
The religious right gets their theocracy on
July 17, 2005
America is a very religious country, and we take pride in the success of many diverse faiths, large and small. It seems obvious that what gives us this religious life is our unique form of government -- the First Amendment pact of neutrality and nonaggression that keeps faith free for all.
The religious right doesn't quite see it this way. They see our society falling into sin, "Slouching towards Gomorrah" as Robert Bork put it, and they want emergency relief in the form of government intervention into the lives and faith of everybody else. So their push for a special government stamp of endorsement in the Ten Commandments case.
If that weren't bad enough, they've decided that one political party is enough for Jesus. The Ten Commandments campaign is really just a small and symbolic part of a larger right-wing effort to give the Republican Party the appearance of a monopoly on religious and moral values in the public conscience.
MYTH: Jesus is a right-winger -- and any progressive Christians just ain't Christian
[A] new leftist religious organization announced its inception to battle the alleged domination that Dr. James Dobson, Pat Robertson and I have on modern-day politics. This organization, the Christian Alliance for Progress, is hardly "Christian." ...
[T]he Christian Alliance for Progress says it will "speak out when conservative Christians misrepresent the gospel to support their misguided political positions." These positions include "equality for gays and lesbians" and "honoring the sanctity of childbearing decisions through effective prevention, not criminalization of abortion." ...
The Christian Alliance for Progress can label itself "Christian," but it is willfully daring to distort and dispute biblical writings forbidding homosexuality. ... Further, abortion is clearly not the will of God. The Bible does not expressly address abortion, but in Psalm 139, we see a beautiful and remarkable picture of Almighty God ministering to us even within the womb ...
Finally, the Alliance calls for peace and an end to war, but they cannot understand that the only true peace that man can know comes through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He was not a hippie do-gooder, but rather the Son of the Living God, who came to earth to pave the one way to heaven for mankind. To present Him as anything less is an outrage…
-- Jerry Falwell, "Another Group Arrives to Combat the 'Religious Right,'" NewsMax, 7/10/2005
REALITY
Jerry Falwell, who founded the Moral Majority to elect Reagan on the Bible ticket, is one of the leaders of this Party of God movement. A new religious group, the Christian Alliance for Progress, is trying to counteract this partisan poisoning of faith, and Falwell will have none of it -- they don't even qualify as "Christian" as far as he is concerned. The Alliance’s commitment to peace, compassion and justice is “an outrage,” according to Falwell, because Jesus was “not a hippie do-gooder.” As everyone knows, Jesus was the world’s first neo-con.
The Alliance’s commitment to equality for all, including homosexuals, really provokes Falwell’s outrage, however, because the Bible forbids homosexual behavior. Actually, there is some debate about exactly what type of behavior Paul had in mind in Romans 1, but let us assume that Falwell is right. If homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens because Romans 1 forbids homosexual behavior, then who else deserves the same treatment? We should consult the Bible for more guidance:
“11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: 12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her. “ (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
“10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare [2] her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.” (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
“15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: 16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)
“13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.” (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
“1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 21:1)
And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. (Leviticus 25: 35-36)
So women, bastard children, and usurers either warrant punishment on earth or will ultimately be refused salvation in heaven. It seems that the Reverend Falwell should be just as concerned about “different sex” benefits.
The point here is not to mock the Bible, but rather to show that in terms of public policy in a pluralistic society, its mandated priorities are far from clear. Of course, Christians can and do seek policy answers in the Bible -- but when looking at what moral codes to enforce or whom to exclude by the instrument of government, passages that conflict with Jesus’ message of unconditional love should probably be viewed with caution.
With regards to abortion, let's look at the statement Falwell abhors: "honoring the sanctity of childbearing decisions through effective prevention, not criminalization of abortion." Preventing abortions isn't good enough for Falwell -- he requires that "criminalization" part for his metric of Christianness. To him, being Christian means using the police powers of the state. I wonder what the limit is of that logic.
MYTH: Theologians are entitled to make declarations on matters of science—and we have to respect the nonsense they spout
In an op-ed article in Thursday's New York Times, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, declared that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."
-- Carl Limbacher, "Cardinal Distances Church From Evolution," NewsMax.com, 7/10/05
REALITY
The Catholic Church has often, to paraphrase the conservative godfather Bill Buckley, stood athwart history. Previous attempts to attack scientific advancement include their opposition to the theory of gravity and Nicholas Copernicus’ heresy that the earth revolves around the sun. As it happens, Cardinal Schoenborn is not a biologist, and for him to make a pronouncement as to the "truth" of a scientific theory is absurd. Your biology teacher should not tell you whether your soul will go to heaven, and your priest should not tell whether random variation and natural selection are true.
The view from heaven may not allow for "randomness," but when it comes to the perspective of science, our view from earth tells us that some things are predictably unpredictable (unpredictable by us). Whether there is a higher meaning or order to this random variation is beyond the scope of the scientists -- just as evolutionary theory isn't determined by dogma.
MYTH: Religion in the public sphere is under attack in public places—and Congress ought to counter-attack
Over 100 congressmen have introduced a constitutional amendment to protect religious expression on public property….
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) joined Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), other congressmen and pro-family groups to propose the Religious Freedom Amendment (RFA), an effort to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which removed the Ten Commandments from a Kentucky courthouse….
“Deeply religious European colonists escaped the two tyrannies of the crown and the church and came to America," said Bartlett in a statement. "Intolerant people have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school, and other religious expression, but this amendment will halt those attacks," added Istook.”
-- Melanie Hunter, Amendment would reverse Ten Commandments ruling, Insight, July 1, 2005 )
REALITY
As we discussed last week, the Supreme Court’s Ten Commandments decision was a compromise that kept things pretty much the way they were, and that prompted both sides—the ACLU and the Christian conservative legal organization, the Center for Law and Social Justice—to claim victory (Washington Post, 06/28/05). According to The Christian Science Monitor: “The high court has carved out a middle position in this ongoing and increasingly heated debate” (The Christian Science Monitor, 06/28/05). Nevertheless, conservative lawmakers and pundits are relentlessly portraying the decision as another liberal assault on religion.
The progressive opposition to displaying the Ten Commandments in the courtroom is not borne out of intolerance for religion, as Melanie Hunter suggests, but rather just the opposite. It is precisely tolerance that compels a progressive to oppose such religious displays, which send the message that the state prefers one religious tradition over another. Bartlett is correct to point out that, “Deeply religious European colonists escaped the two tyrannies of the crown and the church and came to America,” which is precisely why they weren’t about to create another church tyranny here in America.
Rep. Istook falsely asserts that “people have been attacking the Ten Commandments.” People have done no such thing. Some conservatives down in Kentucky tried to use the courthouse as a pulpit, and all we're saying is they can't make the state powers to endorse their particular religious symbols -- even if the symbol in question is shared by most Americans. (Although which version of the Commandments to endorse is another question entirely.)
This is simply the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment -- that there is no "official" church in this country.
Nor, as Istook claims, are people attacking the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The person he presumably refers to is Michael Newdow, the atheist father who sued his daughter’s school district over the requirement that student’s say the pledge. Again though, what he opposed was not the pledge itself, but the phrase “under God” which was added in 1954, long after the pledge was first written. In any case, the Supreme Court ruled that Newdow did not have standing to challenge the pledge, thus effectively reversing the lower court decision in his favor. Presumably that would obviate the “need” for this amendment. But what Republican congressman would let an inconvenient fact like that get in his way?)
No, nobody is attacking him or his religion. All we want is to observe the constitutional mandate of the separation of church and state. This may mean we don't endorse or specially privilege his religion, but we sure as hell aren't attacking it.
As we noted on our blog, this bizarre notion of perceived "hostility" is crucial to claim Americans most dominant, successful, and politically powerful religion is being somehow "persecuted," and thus their one-sided culture war is defensive. As the religious right works to integrate more and more of the government with the activist leaders of the "Party of God," and succeeds in drowning out any and all voices of reason and compromise, it ought to be clear who's hostile.
