What has the religious right achieved?
Among its success, the religious right mustered a broad resistance to the legal establishment of secularism. Some on the left still contend that religiously motivated arguments are illegitimate in the debate over public policy. Evidently, in their conception, the separation of church and state means that, although citizens may advocate a certain political view on the basis of utilitarianism or liberalism or vegetarianism, they may not do so on the basis of moral views rooted in Christianity or Judaism.
Religious conservatives have stoutly resisted this notion, reminding us that many pivotal events in American political history -- from abolition to the civil rights movement -- came about in large part thanks to religiously informed social activism.
Practically speaking, the religious right has also scored some successes. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, essentially legalizing abortion on demand, an editorial in the New York Times announced the abortion debate over. In part because of the religious right, the debate continues -- with a majority of Americans in some recent polls now considering themselves pro-life. Given the cultural forces arrayed against pro-life Americans, this is a remarkable achievement.
The religious right has also formed an element in a larger political coalition defending and encouraging an active, moral role for America in the world. This was especially important during the period of the Cold War. And it has been a stalwart supporter of the often friendless state of Israel in that nation's struggle for survival against enemies sworn to its destruction.
Still, could the religious right have done things better, and is a different model of social engagement needed for the future? We believe the answer to both questions is yes.
The language and tone of the religious right have often been apocalyptic, off-putting, and counterproductive. "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews," said Jerry Falwell, "so liberal America is now doing to evangelical Christians." In 1994, a conspiracy-mongering video promoted by Falwell associated President Bill Clinton with drug dealing and murder.
Such melodrama, or hysteria, is good for fund-raising, but bad for American politics. It makes a civil political conversation impossible, and does a disservice to the cause of a Christian witness to society.
Strategically, too, the religious right has been inconsistent and politically arbitrary. During the 1980s, the Christian Voice issued report cards measuring candidates' views not only on school prayer and abortion but also on support for an American defense treaty with Taiwan and opposition to a national Department of Education; there were no categories concerning the relief of poverty or racial equality. Such selectively left a strong impression that the movement was less an independent voice than a tool of a specific political ideology.
The biggest problem of the religious right, however, has not been tonal or strategic but theological. Some conservative Christians have identified the nature and destiny of America with the nature and destiny of biblical Israel. This view of the New World as the new Israel has a long history, but a pedigree does not make it correct.
America was not founded as a Christian nation -- precisely because the founders were informed by a Jewish and Christian understanding of human nature. Since humans are autonomous moral beings created in God's image, freedom of conscience is essential to dignity. At least where the federal government was concerned, the founders asserted that citizens should be subject to God and their conscience, not the state. America was designed to be a nation where all faiths are welcomed, not one where one faith is favored. Historically, this disestablishment of religion has served the Christian faith well, preserving it from being corrupted and tainted by political power.
In combination, the various failings of the religious right -- of tone, strategy, theology, and simply human sympathy -- abetted a social backlash that goes beyond politics. By the 1990s, argues Robert Putnam, the politicization of religion by the religious right was causing many young people to turn against religion itself. The religious right, it turns out, was not good for religion.
The religious right began as a defensive reaction to the aggressions of the modern world. It ended by squandering much of its promise because it was too reactive. Often it responded to anger with anger. It responded to the liberal gospel by downplaying the very idea of social justice, thus narrowing the range of evangelical concern. The result was often a partial agenda, even a partisan one. In an unexpected way, this reactive model of social engagement allowed the left to continue setting the social and political agenda.
The next phase of Christian social engagement will need to move beyond reaction, instead applying first principles to a broad range of public concerns.
Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner are authors of the recently released book, City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era, from which this post is excerpted.
Jonathan D. Fitzgerald: The Unfortunate Effects Apocalyptic Beliefs Can Have On Morality
Amarnath Amarasingam: How Should Religion Behave in Public?
Brad Hirschfield: Bringing God Into the Polling Booth
The problem is not the religion but the organised religion. Once it is patronised by the clergies, it gets corrupted and self centred.
God bless
Dr. O. P. Sudrania
And maybe the reason abolition happened had a tag more to do with 600K American dead than a preacher in the pulpit.
Here's the big question: WHY DO ANY OF US BELIEVE WHAT WE BELIEVE? No religion or philosophy guarantees that the person believing it will act honestly, kindly and compassionately. So what are we left with? PERSONAL CHOICE. Exactly what religios do NOT want you to have. Think about it.
Anyone getting the theme here?
You don't need religion to do right by your fellow humans, any more than being religious means you will.
Note to world: It's not what you believe. It's what you DO that counts.
I would consider that to be one of their biggest failures.
It will be something that they will be remembered for, and will feel ashamed of, for decades if not centuries.
...not to mention the dozens of cases of vandalism and actual bombing of medical clinics, assaults and murders of doctors, in service of the anti-abortion goal. Remarkable. The religious right has motivated and activated a violent lunatic fringe in service of its political goals.
Congratulations.
And where are the mainstream churches today, when poor people are said to deserve their plight, and are accused of being lazy, shiftless, and not willing to work? I don't see mainliners railing against poverty (or against bombing Arab civilians) in the name of the Prince of Peace. Meanwhile, 10% of of our workers can't find work, the minimum wage is so low that families can barely exist on it and our corporate government sets the economic rules so about 5% of workers are always unemployed. Do you think Christ wouldn't accept our poor as poor? Do you think He approves of structuring a society so the poor are downtrodden? Why haven't "Christians" protested the hijacking of the name of Prince of Peace to conduct evil?
They are so great at what they do they have the entire world teetering on the brink of annihiliation while they fawn over the possibility of a world-ending flash of self-fufilling prophecy.
Evangelicals say protestants are wrong, protestants say catholics are wrong, baptists say lutherans are wrong, lutherans think methodists are wrong, and they all look disgustedly at JWs, mormons, and pentacostals.
And don't forget what this whole judeo part means. Their dwindling numbers force them to try to ally themselves w/a group that some of their extremists vilify for killing the son of their deity. The main reason for the alliance on the part of xtians is that they are hoping for the end of the world. Look to the popularity of the left behind series if you have doubts as to this. Look at the number of preachers who spout that we are in the end times and look over their shoulder constantly for the anti-christ.
Do I really have to spell out their feelings on the other abrahamic religion?
Leave me out of your sick fantasies. My gender is abused by all of you. In your holy books I am nothing but the property of my male relatives. I, for one, am not chattel.
I refuse to believe in a god that is made in the image of men from 2k yrs ago.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute On The Constitution
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
In many ways they are the most hateful bigoted peple in the USA. Politicians all feign to cater to their "family values" and yet they live the exact opposite morality. Look at Newt GIngrich! Sarah Palin lies through her teeth for money and greed, but claims to be "religious"...and the list goes on and on!
They preach forgiveness, acceptance, and other views yet act on none of them. In fact, they do the exact opposite.
We have their religious right groups wanting Freedom of Speech and Religion to be disregarded with Islam and other religions b/c it is violent yet then tell us that their own violence in the Bible is not meant literally.
They are a walking bunch of hypocrites
America was not founded as a Christian nation because the founders were deists at best and did not subscribe to Judeo-Christian beliefs. There are several examples from Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Washington and Paine amongst others that they were opposed to the Church. The religious right has been on the wrong side of history from civil rights to stem cells. These are the people who concocted a misinformation campaign in order to keep their creation myth being taught in schools as if it were a legitimate scientific concept instead of a fairy tale dreamed up in the Bronze Age. How can society progress when there are elements within that demand we look backwards with closed minds? I am not a religious man but I pray for the decline of all religion and for the ascention of logic and reason.
"although citizens may advocate a certain political view on the basis of utilitarianism or liberalism or vegetarianism, they may not do so on the basis of moral views rooted in Christianity or Judaism."
This is a half-truth. Most on the left have no problem with political views that are formed in part on the basis of religion. We just expect to have some reasoning behind those views other than "God said so". Appealing to the so-called words of a deity written in a bronze age book and expecting someone who doesn't follow that same religion to accept it as truth is rather ridiculous.
"many pivotal events in American political history -- from abolition to the civil rights movement -- came about in large part thanks to religiously informed social activism."
Again, another half-truth. Sure, many religious people supported the abolition of slavery and civil rights. Many more Christians used verses from the very same religious text to support the continuation of slavery and discrimination.
"In part because of the religious right, the debate continues -- with a majority of Americans in some recent polls now considering themselves pro-life."
Your use of the label "pro-life" automatically makes this statement a lie. Pro-life? You mean pro-birth. The religious right has typically opposed any governmental actions that would make life better for the poor or down-trodden. They don't care what happens after birth.
I've often asked anti-abortion proponents how many unwanted children they've adopted. The 2 to 17 year olds, who's mothers were guilted into having the baby and their lives just aren't working out.
With all the pro-lifes, there shouldn't be any foster homes and orphanages.
I have to question what poll says a majority of Americans are pro-life.
The likes of Beck and Palin, and all those alarmist conservatives do represent the religious right, yet their use of lies of either induce fear or plainly libel individuals is well documented. It's arguable that their very actions have also led to erosion of beliefs among the populace. These cannot be justified on the basis of past achievement. It's factual that the founding fathers possessed religious beliefs, and that abolitionists and anti-slavery crusaders, the likes of Sir William Wilberforce too, but there are clear failings by this group in society.
Who practices intolerance more in America than the religious right? Who falsifies birth records of prominent figures like Obama if not this group? Who does the colloquialism "WASP" in Ameripolitics refer to? Who does the Fox network speak for? Who opposes immigrants and persecutes them in the guise of purifying the nation?
If the right is keen on judging anyone deemed different from them, why shouldn't they be subjected to similar treatment and standards?
Holding a dissenting view, or speaking outright against wrongs by people you respect and follow does not make someone bigoted. It only makes them different. If you'd take a look at many of the posts you feel are bigoted towards Christians you'd be pleasantly surprised at their refreshing honesty. No enmity here at all, nothing personal, just honesty and disappointed about lies and suchlike.