Date: 25 August 1993
Subject: What's wrong with the Religious Right
From: citizens@cscns.com (David Bruce, PhD; Member, Citizens Project)
X-Copyright: Copyright (c) 1993 by David Bruce.  This material may
	be freely copied and distributed for noncommercial purposes
	provided that this notice remains intact.  Commercial use of
	this material requires prior written permission from the author.
X-Disclaimer: THIS MATERIAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF
	CITIZENS PROJECT.  IT IS PROVIDED SOLELY AS A SERVICE TO OUR
	PARTICIPANTS.

Several months ago, on a bright, sunny Sunday afternoon, a young
woman and middle aged man rang my doorbell.  When I answered, the
young woman somewhat nervously stated that they had come to confirm
"the census" and asked if I would be "good enough" to participate.
I was a little suspicious: "You mean the official U.S. census?"
They both nodded affirmatively, so I asked the young woman "Where
are you from?"  I looked at her; she looked at the middle aged man
and he smiled benevolently and said, "From your local neighborhood
church."  My suspicion grew; I couldn't help but ask the young
woman, why she hadn't responded to my question, didn't she know
where she was from?  But never mind, confirming the census sounded
like a civic-minded thing to do regardless of who was putting in
the leg work, so I agreed to participate.  "Alright, first
question: 'Do you believe in God Almighty?"  We had just exceeded
my limit of tolerable deviance.  As a Unitarian, I've actively
encouraged tolerance and have developed a sincere personal
appreciation for religious and cultural diversity.  But I can't
stand being lied to; I lost my temper: "There were no questions
about God (Almighty or otherwise) on the census; I know; I filled
it out; You're lying to me; Why would you lie? Did 'my local
neighborhood church' send you here to lie to me? Does Jesus know
what you're doing?"  By the time I paused to take a breath, they
were already half way down the walkway; she, near tears and he
assuring her that I was possessed (or something like that).

I had acted badly and I knew it; I was frustrated and disappointed
with my own response.  Clearly, they were in the wrong but what I
had done probably just confirmed all their negative stereotypes of
people, like me, who might not choose to attend their "local
neighborhood church".  Who were these "church" people, and what
made them think they had the right to intrude on my Sunday
afternoon under false pretenses?  Over the next several months, my
activities with Citizens Project allowed me a better understanding
of what had transpired that afternoon.  As you know, Citizens
Project is a non profit group concerned about threats to public and
private civil liberties posed by certain factions of the religious
right.  As a member of Citizens Project Board, I've had the
opportunity to meet with senior executives from Focus on the
Family, attend one of their "Community Impact" seminars and also
talk with several other folks involved with "the religious right".
Some of what I've discovered might interest you.

Most of my information has been drawn from pamphlets and programs
provided by one particular group: Focus on the Family.  I hasten to
point out that Focus is by no means the most extreme group on "the
religious right".  In fact, they speak very pejoratively of the
"loose canons", "Bible-thumpers" and "bomb-throwers" whom they see
as having gone "too far".  I really think Focus expected those of
us from Citizens Project they invited to attend their day-long
Community Impact Seminar to return and reassure the rest of you
that we had nothing to fear from Focus.  They miscalculated.

The Community Impact Seminar provided considerable evidence that
Focus fully intends to impose their own "Christian solutions" on a
wide variety of complex social problems.  Claiming the scriptures
as the "exclusive", "literal" and "inerrant" word of God, their
agenda involves removing barriers between church and state and
"re"establishing "Christian rule" in America.  Although they've
discovered that Christian television and radio programs provide a
very effective way to connect "like-minded Christians", the seminar
made it clear that social activism in local neighborhood churches
is also necessary.  Replacing traditional "works of mercy" with "a
quest for justice" through locally-coordinated economic and
political action transforms their fundamentalist, evangelical
beliefs from a source of personal values and spiritual strength to
a framework for social, political and judicial change.  During the
seminar, Focus made a number of theological, philosophical and
historical claims concerning the identity of those who shared their
views.  Before suggesting how we might counter the threat I think
they pose, it is important for you to understand who they really
are.

Spiritual Claims

Theologically and spiritually speaking, Focus on the Family claims
to represent traditional Christian beliefs and values.  They paint
themselves as somewhat moderate, mainstream representatives of the
faith; however, even the surveys they used during the seminar
presentations suggested that only a minority of Americans who
"claim" to be Christians really accept the Bible as the exclusive,
literal and inerrant word of God.  A friend, who heads a Biblical
Christian organization (seen by some as being even more
conservative than Focus) was very quick to admit that the Bible is
full of metaphors (i.e., it is not literal).  While there are many
who claim to be Christians who insist that the Bible is the only
(i.e., exclusive) divine revelation, many others accept the
possibility that other great religious works also contain
revelation and enlightenment.  Many such moderate Christians are
embarrassed by the dogmatic and exclusive perspectives put forward
by groups such as Focus and are eager to disassociate themselves
from such groups.

In his book, Evil: the Shadow Side of Reality, author John Sanford
recounts the story of the grand inquisitor from Dostoevsky's The
Brothers Karamazov.  Basically, Christ has returned to earth and
the grand inquisitor has had him thrown in prison.  It's not that
the grand inquisitor believes Jesus is an imposter; the grand
inquisitor accuses Jesus of having come back to disturb and disrupt
the work the church has been carrying out in his name.  The
inquisitor claims that the church has "corrected" Christ's
teachings which had placed on mankind the impossible burden of
being free but which led to too much misery.  The church had lifted
this burden of freedom so that people could be happy.  Needless to
say, Sanford as well as many others who call themselves Christians
do not share the grand inquisitors perspective.  As Sanford
suggests:

The greatest ethical value, according to Jesus, is to become a free
person, and this means a conscious person... When we are told to
conform to a standard of goodness imposed by collective authority,
and to repress everything from our consciousness that contradicts
this, we have lost our freedom; we are no longer conscious people
responsible for ourselves.  But in Jesus' ethic man is left with
the alternatives life poses, the problem of his own duality and the
necessity for psychological honesty.  Growth in consciousness is
valued more highly by Jesus than conformity to "goodness."  Freedom
is of the highest psychological value, because this alone makes
possible  the development of consciousness and love. (p.83)

Focus' implicit insistence on accepting a particular interpretation
of scripture as the literal and inerrant "truth" obviates
individual conscious decision making.  The perspective taken by the
grand inquisitor and Focus on the Family requires individual
cognitive abstinence.  However, it is unfair to blame Christianity
itself for the imposition of mind-numbing servitude as the price of
salvation.  There are still grand inquisitors among us but many
modern Christians I know are much more comfortable with the
perspective Sanford expresses.

One last point to be made involves the claim of the "inerrancy" of
the scriptures.  The belief that a work as extensive and eclectic
as the Bible is without error necessarily rests on the assumption
that the work itself is without internal contradiction.  However,
when we read in Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers", it is
a little disconcerting to read Jesus' words several chapters later
(Matthew 10:34) "Think not that I come to send peace on earth, I
come not to send peace but to send a sword."  Similarly there
appears to be an inconsistency between the admonition in Matthew
(26:52) that "All that take the sword shall perish by it." and the
direction in Luke (22:36) that "He who hath no sword, let him sell
his garments and buy one".  However, it is in Luke (6:27) where
Jesus tells his disciples to "Love thine enemies; do good to them
that hate you" but John (2:15) tells that in dealing with his own
enemies (the money changers in the temple), Jesus "made a scourge
of small cords and drove them out of the temple ... and poured out
the changer's money and overthrew their tables" (tough love
perhaps?).

In an attempt to understand Focus on the Family's support of
Amendment 2, a friend of mine called and asked for Biblical
references for their position.  She was referred to the story of
Lot and the Sodomites in the book of Genesis.  Here's how the story
goes: two angels were visiting Lot one afternoon, when a rowdy
crowd from nearby Sodom came by and demanded that Lot send out the
young men that they (the Sodomites) might know them (in the
Biblical sense).  Being a man of high virtue who loved God, Lot
resisted and said "No; ...take my young daughters instead."
Several chapters later, the young daughters exact their revenge by
getting Lot drunk and partying with him all night long (in the
modern sense of the word).  We all know what God did to Sodom (and
Gomorrah as well) and I suspect if one accepts the Bible as the
"exclusive", "literal" and "inerrant" word of God, one might
consider this story as a legitimate basis for denying gays and
lesbians the right to protection from discrimination.  However,
what is less clear is how one might avoid taking this same story as
an indication of God's support for child prostitution and incest.
The point of all this is that Focus's claim that the Bible is the
exclusive, literal and inerrant word of God is much farther than
most contemporary Christians want to go; and claiming that this
view is representative of most Christians or even necessary is
simply untrue.

Philosophical Claims

From a philosophical perspective, Focus on the Family claims they
represent objectivism, the approach shared by "Aristotle,
Christianity and 20 centuries of Western Culture".  However, once
again there is Quite a gulf between their claim and reality.  Since
Aristotle died nearly 500 years before the scriptures were
collected into anything resembling a New Testament, it hard to
argue he believed that they were the exclusive, literal and
inerrant work of God (but perhaps I'm becoming too literal).  There
is, in fact, a philosophical approach known as objectivism within
which Aristotle fits.  Technically speaking,  Focus' belief in the
literal inerrancy of scripture also does qualify for inclusion in
this category.  However, since others in this category also include
the modern writer Ayn Rand and the late, great, 18th century German
philosopher Immanual Kant, characterizing the Focus philosophy as
"objectivist" is like calling a tomato a fruit; although
technically true, it is clearly not representative of the category.

In fact the closest I came to finding a philosophical category
which was consistent with Focus's approach was scholasticism.  This
movement dominated Western Culture from the 9th until the 17th
century.  It combined a fixed religious dogma with the mystical and
intuitional tradition of patristic philosophy in an attempt to
document natural evidence consistent with pre-existing religious
assumptions.  Human reason was not employed to discover truth but
to explore, explicate, and defend scriptural truths that were
already known.  These "truths" themselves were not subject to
scrutiny, doubt or inquiry (this would have been "heresy").
Historically speaking, this approach formed the basis for canon law
and feudalism and ushered in the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition
and was exemplified by the conduct of the Salem witch trials.

The folks at Focus also took great pains to distinguish themselves
from all the philosophical "isms" they felt were responsible for
mankind's spiritual and ethical demise: empiricism, relativism, and
subjectivism.  They did not, however, admit that their rejection of
empiricism as "an inherently unstable philosophical position" also
meant the rejection of the scientific method which has been so
essential to the advance of western technology and culture over the
last 500 years.  They also did not pursue the implications of their
suggestion that "tolerance" was the evil consequence of relativism
and subjectivism.  (I wonder what modern miracles they expect
"intolerance" to create in our community.)  Thus far, I've argued
that the Focus approach represents neither Christianity nor
Objectivism; let's take a closer look at where they claim to have
come from.

Historical Claims

To quote directly from their glossy Community Impact Curriculum:
"(1) we were a Christian nation at one time and (2) forsaking that
heritage was a big mistake" (p.16). At the seminar, an impressive
sequence of dramatic recordings of the words of our founding
fathers were used to create the impression that these 18th century
patriots would have much rather formed a Bible study circle than
founded a democracy (which one of the speakers referred to a little
disdainfully as "majoritarianism").  It was argued that most of the
words, thoughts and ideas contained in the Constitution were
actually of Biblical origin and the separation of church and state
was revealed to be a very recent and completely unprecedented
misinterpretation of a casual phrase Jefferson once used in an
obscure letter to a friend.  The words of John Jay, first Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court were offered as being much more
representative of the perspective shared by our founding fathers:
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and
it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a
Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for its rulers"
(p.19)

In an earlier article, Hocus Focus, I present a number of
historical quotations which directly contradict this claim.  From
Franklin's "lighthouses are more useful than churches", to John
Adam's dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law which vehemently warns
of the danger of intertwining issues of church and state, to Thomas
Paine's tirades against the Bible and hierarchically-imposed
religious beliefs and Thomas Jefferson's authorship of a his own
New Testament which deliberately omits the resurrection and
ascension, it is clear that many of "our founding fathers" would
have been just as uncomfortable with Focus' current approach as you
and I are.  In particular, the implication that these men were the
kind of Christians who would be attentively tuned to Dr. Dobson
every afternoon seems unimaginable.  They were certainly men of
high moral character, sincerely committed to creating a system
which promoted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but
there were few Focus-style fundamentalists or grand inquisitors
among them.

The Current Situation

So the Focus approach is neither Christian nor Objectivist and is
without the historical foundation they assert.  Nonetheless, groups
like this on the religious right represent a force to be reckoned
with, both nationally and locally.  Nationally, these groups were
featured prominently at the Republican Convention (and some have
suggested with disastrous electoral consequences).  Television
evangelist, Pat Robertson, who already controls two television
networks and numerous radio stations, recently offered to purchase
United Press International.  Our own local Focus on the Family
grosses 10's of millions of dollars annually.  During a tour of
their facilities, they told us they receive 10,000 letters and
2,000 phone calls daily and respond to every one in less than 5
working days.  Locally, Focus employs over 900 employees, all of
whom have accepted a statement of fundamentalist religious beliefs
as a condition of employment.  And as I suggested previously, Focus
is by no means the most extreme of the groups on the religious
right.  Over 50 other national, evangelical or fundamentalist
"Christian" organizations already have headquarters here in
Colorado Springs and reports suggest that more are on their way.

Our Response

What can we do?  We can't ignore them - we and those we care about
have too much to lose.  We can't fight them - letting our anger and
frustration out plays directly into the hands of our adversaries;
they strive to be models of good citizenship; they've learned a lot
from the likes of Hargis, Swaggert and Baker; it's unlikely they'll
get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.  We can't even
join them - their loyalty oath would exclude most of us.  Even
dialog with them is problematic; their views and values render them
untrustworthy.  Their standard of truth is scriptural consistency,
not objective, empirical evidence or logical coherence.  As our
experience with the campaign they waged in support of Amendment 2
attests, they are ready, willing, and able to misrepresent
themselves and their beliefs for the purposes of social or
political expediency.

We are unlikely to change them; we must accept responsibility for
changing ourselves.  There is little we can do directly to persuade
them that sex education does not encourage promiscuity, condoms do
not spread Aids, the legal availability of abortions do not
increase teenage pregnancies, homosexuals are not out to recruit
their children, humanists are not out to destroy their families and
tolerance is not really a dirty word.  These are their beliefs and
we can't change them until they start looking at evidence and
listening to reason.  As I said, what we can change is ourselves:
we must become VITAL.  We must renew our commitment to be active
participants in a free and constitutional democracy; we must
reclaim our roles and responsibilities as "citizens".  For me, each
of the five letters in the word VITAL serves as a reminder for what
I must do to contribute as a citizen: V - Visible; I - Informed; T
- Truthful; A - Accountable and L - Liberal.

Thomas Jefferson once said all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is
for people of good conscience to remain silent.  The two-to-one
margin of victory Amendment 2 received in this community has given
license to some to openly express their narrow-minded and
hate-filled bigotry in even public settings and over the public
airways.  When we sit silently; others assume we're condoning or
concurring with these opinions.  The voice of love and reason are
soft but extremely powerful.  Living in this town gives each of us
many opportunities to exercise or commitment to traditional values
such as liberty, tolerance and cultural diversity.  Each of us must
become more Visible.  Some of you may have heard of Ruth Williams,
a therapist who was viciously attacked early one Saturday morning
in her office.  After she had been knocked unconscious, Mace was
sprayed in her face, shoes and socks, religious slogans were spray
painted on the walls of her office, crosses scratched on her hand
and back, a knife stuck the last edition of Freedom Watch to her
door and the Celebrate Diversity bumper sticker on her car covered
with spray paint.  I don't know Ruth, but Doug and Amy were in
contact with her to provide Citizens Project's support.  At the end
of the initial conversation, Amy asked Ruth, "Is there anything at
all you need that we might be able to provide?"  After a short
pause, Ruth replied, "Could I get another bumper sticker?"

Being courageous is not enough; we also must be Informed.  Without
knowledge, we might even find ourselves being persuaded by the
simple solutions the religious right proposes.  Equally dangerous
is the problem of automatically opposing any position simply on the
knowledge that it has been proposed by the religious right.  We
cannot let others do our thinking for us.  What kind of God would
give us a mind and not expect us to use it?  We must learn to
cherish our doubts and actively seek answers to our questions by
conducting our own research and constructing our own arguments.
Some of the material put out by the religious right contains useful
data and revealing arguments.  Its hard to form our own opinions if
we are unfamiliar with alternative arguments and perspectives.  It
is, however, a mistake to take their publications at face value:
they will not hesitate to cite articles that have never been
published or ones written by PhDs who've been censored by
professional societies for academic fraud; they lift quotations out
of context to distort their meaning; and often seek only the most
outrageous representatives or spokes-persons to characterize the
views of those who oppose them.

Isn't it appropriate to fight fire with fire?  Shouldn't we put our
heads together and create the most compelling counter-arguments to
their claims in order to persuade the masses of their infamy?
Before you say "yes!", stop for a moment and consider your
assumptions about other human beings.  If you share the assumptions
of these new age grand inquisitors, then such a strategy might make
sense.  Their religion teaches that humankind is naturally sinful
and incapable of thoughtful reflection.  Time and again at the
Community Impact Seminar we were reminded that most of us can't
really think but can "only rearrange our prejudices".  On the other
hand if you begin with more positive assumptions about humankind,
then creating misleading propaganda is inconsistent.  As Marshall
McLuan suggested: the medium is the message; and we must be
consistent; we must be honest; we must be Truthful.  We must make
every effort to listen objectively to evidence from all sources and
fairly represent both sides of arguments and alternative positions.
We cannot resist religious tyranny by ourselves becoming
narrow-minded bigots.  (Besides someone must teach the religious
fanatics the importance of ethical behavior to a free society.)

We must also be Accountable.  Although we may not agree that being
human is synonymous with being sinful, we also recognize that it is
not the same as being perfect.  Making mistakes seems to be one of
the most common characteristics of the human condition (at least as
I've experienced it).  When mistakes occur we must admit them and
then work to redress any harm we have done.  Unlike, those on the
religious right who don't make mistakes because the Bible is the
absolute, exclusive and inerrant word of God (and they have many
worthy clergy to interpret it for them); we're stuck with having to
make decisions under considerable uncertainty.  Our knowledge is
often incomplete and our principles somewhat fallible.  Once we
accept responsibility for making our own decisions, we also become
responsible for monitoring the social and human consequences of
those decisions.  Life is complicated and sometimes things don't go
as we intended them to; when that happens we can't ignore our
responsibility or blame the outcome on metaphysical others.  A
willingness to be personally accountable for our decisions is
another requisite of democratic citizenship.

And finally we must become more Liberal.  I realize this word has
many meanings, some of which have unpleasant or even pejorative
connotations for some of you.  What I mean by becoming more liberal
is loving liberty more fully and completely; recognizing that
whatever rights we might claim for ourselves we must gladly bestow
on others.  It also means accepting diversity and working to create
systems where women and men of all backgrounds, skin colors and
sexual orientations can live together in peace.  Becoming more
liberal requires us to become more positive in our expectations and
more affirming, supportive and loving in our interactions.  Loving
liberty means reclaiming our national heritage and actively working
with others to create communities which reflect the ideals on which
this nation was founded. The Religious Right is wrong; becoming
vital is not only our right, it is our responsibility.