The recent kerfuffle concerning Mitt Romney and Mormonism reveals the Achilles' heel of the Religious Right -- something which opponents of their agenda would be wise to note.
Recently the most extreme fringes of the Religious Right gathered to pass judgment on which Republicans are being most faithful to the GOP -- in this case that means God's Own Party.
Fundamentalist minister Robert Jeffress, a supporter of Texas Governor Rick Perry, told the assembled hallelujah chorus that Romney was a member of "a cult" and warned them that, "Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian." Jeffress is quite clear that while Perry is a true Christian, Romney is not.
The modern Religious Right is an amalgam of primarily three groups. The largest of them are fundamentalist Christians. The much smaller Mormon sect, along with conservative Catholics -- a minority of all Catholics, but a substantial group -- round out the coalition.
All three claim to be Christian. But more importantly, all three groups claim to be the one and only true church. Conservative Catholics still believe that the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" represents God on earth. The Vatican says that these other sects "cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'churches' in the proper sense."
When Joseph Smith created the Church of Latter-day Saints, he claimed he went to the woods "to inquire of the Lord... which of all the sects was right." The answer he got was "all their creeds were an abomination in His sight," and that other believers "were all corrupt."
Fundamentalist Christians are the most adamant that all other sects are heretical, if not Satanic. Fundamentalists have waged war on Catholicism as the "Great Whore of Babylon" since the Reformation. And there is simply no shortage of hatred among the born-again sects for Mormonism and its rather unique theology.
Since fundamentalists make up the bulk of the Religious Right today, and they loathe their Mormon and Catholic allies, what keeps this coalition together? Only finding a perceived enemy, whom they all hate more than each other, allows them to work together. Of course, the problem is that eventually people tire of their crusades and they have to find other enemies to obsess about.
I have little doubt that one reason Mormon leaders played such a prominent role in funding the anti-gay Proposition 8 in California, was to attempt to buy a place at the table for their church. Mormons have been acutely aware that a large percentage of Christians dislike them, especially evangelicals. The quickest way to convince the villagers that you are one of them, and not Frankenstein's monster, is to grab a pitchfork and lead the attack.
Similarly, one of the best ways to stop a lynch mob is to remind them of how suspicious they are of each other.
A friend of mine, who authored a book on atheism, was brought to a conference to debate a fundamentalist minister. Another friend, a Roman Catholic, thought he would help prep the minister for the debate. They spent a good part of the afternoon strategizing and my Catholic friend and the fundamentalist were united in purpose.
During the question period, I pointed out that the fundamentalist had already denigrated Mormons and asked him whether this held for other faiths as well. For instance, what would he think of a faithful Roman Catholic who followed the teachings of his church to his best ability; would he consider that man a Christian or not?
The minister started stuttering and starting sentences without completing them. He then said: "I'm trying to figure how to answer that question."
My reply was simple: "How about honestly?"
Reluctant, but backed into a corner, he told the audience what I knew he already believed. "No, a Roman Catholic is not a Christian."
My Catholic friend, reminded that fundamentalists were not his friends, came over and thanked me for the question even if he looked unhappy to have lost an ally.
The Religious Right is a coalition. I contend it is one motivated primarily by hatred. The problem they face is that they hate one another rather intensely, as the attacks on Romney revealed. They are rabid in their hatred of homosexuals because that unifies their movement. By turning on a "common enemy" they can temporarily forget their hatred for one another.
Now and then, it is wise for those who oppose their agenda to raise the issue of what they truly believe about each other. Catholics are not so prone to take the bait, and Mormons are more likely to give cagey answers that avoid the issue. But fundamentalists have a strong compulsion to express their contempt whenever given half a chance.
A reporter did ask Michelle Bachmann about this and she deflected the issue by refusing to answer. She just said that "people have different views on their faith." Well, true, but a follow up would have helped. Such as, "Yes, but people also have different views on marriage, yet you feel that the biblical mandate on marriage, as you believe it, should be enshrined into law. Isn't faith in the "correct" god even more important than the right kind of marriage?" You may not get her to give a straight answer, but the squirming she would do would provide a great deal of entertainment. And, she just might be unable to resist temptation, and give a straight-forward "biblical" answer, thus alienating many of her own supporters.
These differences between the three main branches of the Religious Right are real, and they cut deep into their personal beliefs. Bringing up these differences only makes them weaker and makes it more and more likely that their coalition of hate cannot be held together. When it splinters, they will forget their common enemies and turn on one another. If you don't believe me, ask Mitt Romney.
Romney, Jeffress, and the religious right
In Iowa, Religious Right Is Now a Force Divided
Right-to-work bill protested by clergy
Mitt Romney's Evangelical Problem
Michele Bachmann's Last-Ditch Pitch
School choice the right choice?
Anger leads to hate
Hate leads to suffering
No person / creed has attempted to address the, 'Why am I, a non-believer, affected by other's theology?' issue.
Do these people think I care, even slightly, about H. Camping's (multiply postponed) 'Rapture', other than for a (well documented) violence-potential when their disagreed with??!
"My theology, more real than yours" is femptoseconds distant from the, "you transgressed, so I'm following scott roeder's / m. atta's theology. (BTW: A fempto-second is a quadrillionth of a second).
When I was Catholic, (early 50's - to - 'Humanae Vitae'), it occurred to me that I'd NEVER commit violence in the name of establishing / re-enforcing ANY theology, unlike the major religion which currently, (simultaneously) claims 'foetels, wanted / unwanted' are 'sacred', yet Rev. Richard Williamson, (a 'great' ecumenical voice, L.O.L.!), & Tony 'Lap-Dog' Blair, (war criminal, petroleum magnate), are extolled as upstanding examples, 'following Jesus', to the young.
It's never far off my radar, re religious intolerance, ("the bible says it; I agree; THAT settles it'-an evengelical-taliban bumper sticker), outing oneself as 'Neo-Pagan' in or near Christians is STILL a life & limb risk, to say NOTHING 'bout housing, employment, public accommodation & medical care. How 'uppity' of me to assert other's myth-beliefs CAN'T replace mine, minus consent, EVEN if, by some odd chance, these belief - myths, (theirs, mine), are ever scientifically validated!
Unless he's, um, the guy in the White House now. Wouldn't want to actually touch him, much less embrace him. Jeffress was clear about that. Romney would be his choice over Obama if push came to shove.
Once, this kind of intolerence was OK, but not anymore. Fundamentalists are a sick, twisted, fearful people who are afraid of their own happiness. Their time is past and thank god for it too. All the damage they have done to others different than themselves would condemn them to hell, if there was such a place.
It shows just how narrow their vision is + after the initial interest in these groups that some like-minded people see, then the huge wasteland of what their policies don,t offer, becomes starkly apparent.
Hate + exclusivity + engaging in people's sex lives dosen,t reflect, the needs + aspirations of most Americans today I would venture.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the ascendency of the religious right as a political force in America is the direction it takes us in. In addition to the demotion of science and its consequences for national defense and commerce, the policies based on hatred have already alienated us among Muslims world wide, and are causing us to be viewed as untrustworthy by our former allies in secular western Europe. If this progression continues we will find ourselves without allies except for our puppet states like Israel. But the Israelis should be cautious too, for they know from the history of their religion that Christianity has not been a reliable ally of Judaism.
- Fear that learning about another point of view is heresy
- Fear that acknowledging a difference of opinion somehow lessens your own convictions
- Fear that another person's belief somehow threatens your own belief
- Fear that lifting everyone up will bring everyone down
- Fear of damnation because you admit to being wrong or making a mistake
The one true fear that the religious right should embrace is how God would view their close-minded refusal to let others live their own lives without judgement.