Religious Nutters Are Gaining On Us
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League writes:
In 1994, we sounded an alarm. In our book, The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America, we said that "an exclusionist religious movement in this country has attempted to restore what it perceives as the ruins of a Christian nation by more closely seeking to unite its version of Christianity with state power."Alas, our call was not well heeded and we are beginning to see some of the consequences of what we identified.
As a result, today we face a better financed, more sophisticated, coordinated, unified, energized, and organized coalition of groups in opposition to our policy positions on church-state separation than ever before. Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America. To save us!
Who are the major players? They include Focus on the Family, Alliance Defense Fund, The American Family Association and the Family Research Council. They and other groups have established new organizations and church-based networks, and built infrastructures throughout the country designed not just to promote traditional "Christian values," but to actively pursue that restoration of a Christian nation.
To quote D. James Kennedy, one of the most important and influential of today's evangelical leaders: "Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society." Make no mistake: We are facing an emerging Christian Right leadership that intends to "Christianize" all aspects of American life, from the halls of government to the libraries, to the movies, to recording studios, to the playing fields and locker rooms of professional, collegiate and amateur sports, from the military to SpongeBob SquarePants.
In 2002, leaders from ten conservative Christian organizations formed the "Arlington Group," an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations. Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation described it this way: "For the first time, virtually all of the social issues groups are singing off the same sheet of music... when we are working together, we are a mighty force that can't be ignored."
If their agenda was hidden 15 years ago, today it is in full public view. Just take a look at their Web sites, where they document in considerable detail an agenda on a wide range of issues: judicial nominations, same-sex marriage, and faith-based issues - and an agenda that, let us be clear, goes well beyond legitimate engagement in controversial social and political issues to a fundamental usurpation of all that America represents.
Perhaps the two least 'frightening' words in the blogosphere: "via Metafilter."
Crid at November 18, 2005 9:52 PM
Oh we got trouble
right here in River City
With a capital "T" and that rhymes with "E" and that stands for Evangelical.
...Sorry 'bout that...ahem...
I'm as concerned about Evangelicals as the next guy--really, I am. But this is nothing new. Evangelicals have been spoutin' the same garbage since I was a little kid in the 70's. Read their websites or--God forbid--talk to one, and they'll scare you to death. But raise your finger to the wind--I suggest the middle one if you've got some Evangelicals in eyeshot--and I think you'll find that the wind isn't blowin' in their direction.
...and they're really overplayin' their hand!
So many Soccer Moms ground their goalposts into swords and shields--that's where all those Security Moms came from in the last election. But they won't stay scared forever. Minus the fear mongering, Soccer Mom support for these holy warriors 'll go the way of the oversized, day glow t-shirt. (Those are still "out", right?) How many percentage points did the President win by?
Remember how popular Prop 187 was? Pete Wilson rode that wave like a surfboard. ...but it was almost impossible to find a Soccer Mom that would admit to supporting 187 or Wilson only a year later. ...Those were tough times economically, as I recall; people were scared.
I know, we're suffering another one of those "great awakenings" historians are always talkin' about, but, in a way, that's a comfort to me. It means we've survived this before.
When I come across Evangelicals, and occasionally I do, I always try to remember that they're not the enemy--they're the battlefield. ...and I've found it helps to say something insulting to them--really. Sometimes it's the only way to get them to pay attention. ...They're so sure of themselves and their popularity--they picture the only people against them as these propagandized caricatures. When they come across everyday people that despise them, it's shocking.
...and for goodness sake, if you're a Christian, denounce them on religious grounds.
Ken Shultz at November 18, 2005 10:43 PM
You have got to be kidding me! Do you really believe this drivel you write?
The Christian Right's war is not about infusing religion into government it is about keeping government from outlawing religious free expression.
The more you and your minions in the MSM belittle Christianity and allow civic governments to remove the vestiges of it, the harder we will work to counter your efforts. Which came first, the chicken or the egg.
SoCalPundit at November 18, 2005 11:27 PM
Um, don't see any danger of the outlawing of free expression. Quite the contrary; we've got laws for one (Terry Schiavo), and nutters vying to have fairy tales replacing evolution...oh, and to deny gays equal rights based on their primitive religious texts. Religion is a nasty and divisive thing, and based on what, believing what you're told without evidence? Pathetic.
Did your ancestors saddle up a dinosaur to get to work, dya think? I belittle all forms of irrational thought. Perhaps you should join the 21st century, SoCal, and drop the big imaginary friend in the sky?
Amy Alkon at November 19, 2005 2:54 AM
Moreover, So Cal...did you read the quotes within this story? The nutters speak for themselves about how they're trying to turn this into a Christian country. That isn't religious freedom. It's religious totalitarianism.
Amy Alkon at November 19, 2005 2:56 AM
you and your minions in the MSM
Amy's mainstream media? When did this happen? Has anyone told her?
LYT at November 19, 2005 3:18 AM
It would be useful to drop the irritatingly stupid and inadequate term, "tolerance", when debating this issue. Assorted thumpers immediately use the lie that "tolerance" is a code-word for "have sex with anything you can sneak up on and kill the children afterwards".
The real issue is basing actions on the totally-fabricated "authority" of a "divine" being, during a prolonged delusion that "divine", as an adjective, wasn't invented by the audience.
Radwaste at November 19, 2005 5:44 AM
Okay, Radwaste. You perceive a problem (the word "tolerance"). Now, offer a solution. What word do you propose we use instead of "tolerance"?
And by the way, I have yet to hear of a "thumper" insist that "tolerance" was a code-word for anything. It means what it says it means: Live and let live.
As for SoCal's ludicrous idea that the Religious Right is all about free expression and not about imposing religion on government, perhaps he's never heard of the abortion issue, and what the pro-lifers base their entire argument on. Perhaps he's never heard of gay marriage, and again, what the entire opposition bases their argument upon.
If someone isn't doing anything that harms you in any way, nor could reasonably be expected to harm you or anyone else, what the hell do you care what they do?
Patrick at November 19, 2005 7:49 AM
"Freedom of Expression" is the Evangelical side of the religious freedom argument; at least, it's the side they've picked for the last thirty years or so.
Take prayer in public schools, for instance. The Evangelical side of the argument is that people should be free to express themselves publicly in the form of prayer. They argue that intelligent design is also a question of freedom of expression--why shouldn't a science teacher be free to express the subject of science as he understands it?
My answer to both of these questions has to do with Freedom from Establishment. An Evangelical's right to express himself stops where my rights begin. There are very libertarian restrictions on speech, perjury and slander being excellent examples. If an Evangelical's speech tramples on my freedom from establishment, then the law shouldn't protect it. Hence, a parent's and student's right to be free from established religion trumps an Evangelical's "Freedom of Expression".
In their purest theoretical forms, Freedom of Expression and Freedom from Establishment may not be mutually exclusive concepts, but in practice, they often play out as a zero sum game. Evangelicals tend to have a pretty good handle on that concept; what they don't seem to get is the notion of mutual dependency.
...atheists, agnostics and other non-Evangelicals are generally happy to let Evangelicals and others leave "In God we Trust" on the coinage or "Under God" in the Pledge, so long as the government generally respects Freedom from Establishment. Once Evangelicals cross the line--take intelligent design for instance--all bets are off.
I wish more people understood that this works in reverse as well.
Ken Shultz at November 19, 2005 12:38 PM
Okay, Radwaste. You perceive a problem (the word "tolerance"). Now, offer a solution. What word do you propose we use instead of "tolerance"?
I thought this was more obvious; pardon me. Answer: to insist that government is a business with the unique duty of treating everyone equally before the law and to guarantee the same set of rights to every individual. To show that government and its agents has no business acknowledging religion, because the principle of equal treatment before the law, combined with the difficulty of defining a religion, would bring government to a stop if it were to commemorate every religious holiday and practice.
And by the way, I have yet to hear of a "thumper" insist that "tolerance" was a code-word for anything. It means what it says it means: Live and let live.
I get this from debate on the augustachronicle.com forums, where ardent Christians show they are fearful of losing influence in American government. It's not enough for them to practice their religion freely. They must have endorsement, and official approval of preaching everywhere they go. This is not true of every Christian out there, of course. I think it would be useful to take another tack than tell them "tolerance, tolerance" for not only the above-stated reason, but to disallow the next logical leap: that only those in a superior position are empowered to "tolerate" anything - such as the practice of those faiths lesser than Christianity, i.e., all of those other weird ideas.
If someone isn't doing anything that harms you in any way, nor could reasonably be expected to harm you or anyone else, what the hell do you care what they do?
I'm not sure that this logically addresses the issue, but it's simple: the above-cited organizations, regardless of what you might think about their efficacy, are special interests with the aim of increasing their influence. They have no real "divine" mandate to do anything, and the exercise of such power as they might accumulate in government will be (is) exclusive, not inclusive.
Since when should bowing and scraping to a particular invisible entity determine whether you have a voice in government?
Radwaste at November 20, 2005 3:47 AM
Excellent reply, Rad. I'm with you.
Amy Alkon at November 20, 2005 1:09 PM
Leave a comment