http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-viguerie15nov15.story
By Richard A. Viguerie and David Franke
Richard A. Viguerie and David Franke are the authors of “America’s Right Turn: How Conservatives Used New and Alternative Media to Take Power” (Bonus Books, July 2004).
November 15, 2004
John F. Kerry is hardly the first politician to be rejected by religious Americans for failing to measure up to their standards.
There was Thomas Paine, for instance, the pamphleteering superstar of 1776, whose ‘Common Sense” — published in January of that year — lighted the fuse that became the American Revolution. By December, the brash optimism with which the war had started was facing the chilling reality of Valley Forge. Paine came through again with “The Crisis,” which Gen. George Washington read to his troops before they successfully attacked the Hessians in Trenton with their morale restored by Paine’s passionate call to arms.
Washington never forgot the unfathomable debt the nation owed to its popular oracle. But less than 20 years later, Washington would ask Paine to enter his house by the back door. Why? Paine had published his skeptical views on religion in “The Age of Reason,” earning the vitriolic scorn of fellow Americans who had once adored him. Clearly, religious skepticism is not a path to power in the United States.
The U.S. has persistently been the most religious Western nation on Earth, and if the once indomitable Tom Paine could fall victim to the cultural divide of 1794, wishy-washy Kerry had no hope of surviving it in 2004. As recently as the 1960s and ’70s, the Democrats had a strong and vocal religious contingent opposing the war in Vietnam and marching for social justice. (And of course the ACLU wasn’t warning of a theocratic state as long as the God-talk came from the left.) Since then, though, the Democrats have effectively banished God from their public face, just as they have run pro-life Democrats out of the party, no matter how liberal they were on economic issues.
This Democratic God-cleansing paid handsome dividends in 2004 for the Republicans. Until the Democrats learn how to bring God back into the discussion, they have little hope of returning to power.
There simply aren’t enough voters in Berkeley, Santa Monica, Santa Fe, Manhattan and Cambridge to offset the many concerned evangelicals, Catholics and Jews in the rest of the nation for whom moral values are a determining issue. Even minority groups — the backbone of the party’s support — are ditching the party over these issues. Since the Democrats claim to be the party of science, perhaps one of their Nobel laureates can explain the math to them.
The conservative political revolution of the last half-century could not have taken place without the alternative media revolution — the rise of political direct mail, talk radio, cable TV and the Internet. That’s been equally true for that subset of the conservative movement earlier known as the religious right. In the 1970s and ’80s, groups such as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition used direct mail, as well as religious radio, TV and print outlets to promote their social and political agenda. Today’s conservative Christians have the added firepower of the Web.
Also important in this year’s elections was the fact that Catholics were as involved as evangelicals, and their new combined activism hasn’t ended with election day. Just ask Pennsylvania’s Sen. Arlen Specter, who repaid President Bush for his crucial primary endorsement by warning the president not to push pro-life judges for the Supreme Court. Using e-mail and the Internet, talk radio and cable television, conservative Christians have swamped Capitol Hill with demands that Specter be denied the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. GOP senators on the committee have run for cover, and so far few have dared to publicly support their embattled colleague.
The conservative Christian community knows it made the difference this year. Now it expects Bush and the GOP to deliver what it was promised, and there will be political hell to pay if they don’t.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-viguerie15nov15.story
Isn’t “Godless” a little strong of a term? I know of very devout Christians who attend Church every Sunday, tithe, are still married, etc. etc. yet are conflicted on gay marriage legislation and abortion law.
We’ve got the Constitutional amendments pending in many states. What is there left to push for on this issue, exactly?
If Roe v Wade is overturned, what then? Are we done and suddenly America is a “moral nation” again?
What’s “done”? Groups like the FRC and the CWFA need some reason to exist.
This article is incredibly offensive and insulting in its suggestion that a person cannot be a Christian and a Democrat. There are many devout Christians like myself who chose to vote Democrat because we find it’s view of government as a compassionate agency with a mission to improve human lives more consistent with Christ’s message than the heartless and cruel Social Darwinism promoted by the Republicans.
I’m a faithful husband and a father, a hardworking employee, a community volunteer, and a dues paying member of my Church. But for some reason, because I voted for John Kerry, the Christian Right can’t stop characterizing me as a godless heathen, a traitor, and an enemy. How dare Mr. Vigurie and Mr. Franke suggest that only Bush voters consider “moral values are a determining issue.” Some of the words they use to describe Democrats even remind me of the language the Nazis used to characterize jews.
The religious right doesn’t own God; no political party does. The range of moral issues that God through his prophets and Son taught us to be mindful encompass far more concerns than homosexuality and abortion. As Christians we also are called to work for peace, help the poor and those in need, and protect God’s creation, the environment. It is a very evil and convoluted version of Christianity indeed that summarizes Christ’s entire message as nothing more than a homophobic and urban-phobic imperative.
Dean Writes:
This article is incredibly offensive and insulting in its suggestion that a person cannot be a Christian and a Democrat. There are many devout Christians like myself who chose to vote Democrat because we find it?s view of government as a compassionate agency with a mission to improve human lives more consistent with Christ?s message than the heartless and cruel Social Darwinism promoted by the Republicans.
Missourian replies:
Dean does us the favor by hitting the nail on the head. He sees the optimal role of government as a “compassionate agency with a mission to improve human lives.” Herein lies the problem. Like all socialism, it sounds good upon first hearing. However, the implementation of this approach, defining the role of government as a very large social welfare agency, inevitably leads to tyranny and poverty.
Dean has referred to wealth as “obscene.” Wealth is simply a collection of material goods which are useful to humans. Wealth can be used well, or it can be used foolishly, even destructively. Wealth by itself is neutral. Bill Gates became very wealthy by inventing a very useful form of a machine. That machine has empowered millions of people. The overall value to society of the Gates machine is more than the wealth Gates has accumulated. Gates’ invention of the PC is probably responsible for a great deal of the growth of the American economy over the last 20 years. Gates’ wealth was not subtractive but additive and therefore not obscene.
Dean is not comfortable with the natural inequality which inevitably arises in human society given the variation in individual gifts. Some gifts have greater economic value than others. His definition of compassion is tied to government-a huge, very powerful government, rearranging life to fit some overarching vision of what society should be. Unfortunately this approach has been tried and found wanting in Russia, all of Eastern Europe, Viet Nam, Korea, Cambodia and many other places. Each time socialists tell us that if they just had one more chance they can make socialism work. The more socialist a society is the greater the level of unemployment and the greater the number of people assigned to the hopelessness of government dependency. Russia and Eastern Europe lurched ever deeper into poverty as a result of a huge government directing the economy towards a goal of perfect economic equality. It was a spiritual, social, and economic disaster.
Compassion can be put into effect through means other than government. Our constitution does not allow the establishment of a religion. Many citizens are not Christian and many citizens do not want their government to be the instrument of Dean Scourtes vision of Christian compassion. They want a government that works by providing basic services that only government can provide such as good roads, a sound banking system, a sound stock market, properly regulated utilities, national defense and other services of this type. A free people can gather together and provide for the less fortunate through means other than massive government mandated programs. Again, we have example after example of well-intentioned government programs producing the opposite effect to that which was originally intended. President Johnson’s well intentioned War on Povery broke up Black families and laid the groundwork for the vast number of Black men in prison today.
Republicans do not propose Social Darwinsim. They propose measures which promote overal economic growth which provides jobs for as many people as possible. The truly needy should be assisted through a limited number of very well planned government programs, combined with vigorous private giving. Americans have shown themselves to be very generous and Christian communities existed before the era of the super-state. If Christian principles were adopted by individuals there would be very few substance abusers, far fewer criminals, and far stronger families acting as a first-line social welfare net.
Dean Scourtes writes:
I?m a faithful husband and a father, a hardworking employee, a community volunteer, and a dues paying member of my Church. But for some reason, because I voted for John Kerry, the Christian Right can?t stop characterizing me as a godless heathen, a traitor, and an enemy. How dare Mr. Vigurie and Mr. Franke suggest that only Bush voters consider ?moral values are a determining issue.? Some of the words they use to describe Democrats even remind me of the language the Nazis used to characterize jews.
Missourian:
I don’t think that anyone things that Dean is a Godless heathen, but, it is not an unfair characterization of much of the Democractic party. For proof just look at the website of some of the major players in the Democractic fold. Look at the NOW website for example. It drips with hatred of and contempt for the traditional family and the Judeao-Christian moral tradition. The Democratic Party allowed Michael Moore a seat at the head table during its Convention. John Kerry praises Whoopi Goldberg’s obscene, tasteless gutter humor and called it the “heart of America.” No, I don’t think that Dean Scourtes is Godless, I think that many in the Democratic Party are proud and happy to refer to themselves by that term.
Dean writes:
The religious right doesn?t own God; no political party does. The range of moral issues that God through his prophets and Son taught us to be mindful encompass far more concerns than homosexuality and abortion. As Christians we also are called to work for peace, help the poor and those in need, and protect God?s creation, the environment. It is a very evil and convoluted version of Christianity indeed that summarizes Christ?s entire message as nothing more than a homophobic and urban-phobic imperative.
Missourian writes:
I agree that no party “owns God.” I agree that Christians have a wide range of issues to concern themselves with. I don’t know what “urban-phobic” means so I will skip that comment. I agree with those who take the position that there is a hierarcy of values and that respect for innocent human life, the premise that life is sacred must come before all others. Christians are not homo-phobic, whatever that means. Christianity teaches that sexuality has an honored place in life and that sexuality should be directed towards hallowed purposes. Sexuality outside of its proper bounds is destructive to human happiness and social welfare. Procreative unions of men and women should be honored in a way that no other relationship is honored. To honor naturally sterile homosexual relationships in the same manner that true marriage is honored will eventually work towards the extinction of the species. Societies that have accepted homosexuality on the same level as real marriage has vastly declining birth and marriage rates.
Dean states that we are to: a) work for peace b) help the poor and those in need and c) protect God’s creation, the environment. If we seek peace, it is to avoid the loss of human life. Doesn’t all human life count? Are we persuing holiness of if we overlook the killing of innocents in the womb? Isn’t that a type of war by the strong against the small and inconvenient. Who is poorer than the unborn: no property, no wealth, no voice and no vote. Should we protect the Grand Canyon before we protect the weakest and most innocent among us?
If we accept the morality of the strong’s convenience above the life of the weak what is left of our morality? If we can live with abortion for convenience why worry about adults being killed on a battlefield? We really claim that we value human life if we accept abortion as a convenience. Does human life only count if the the individual makes it through the mindfield of gestation in the womb?
So, I think it is important to avoid the idea that one Party is closer to God than another, but, sometimes a particular Party adopts a position which is contemptuous of the traditional family structure and of helpless human life-that party certainly risks forfeiting the support of Christians.
Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics, has a somewhat different take on religion and the election:
“From my vantage point, our fight is not against Republicans or for Democrats. Political parties are neither thoroughly moral nor completely immoral. . . Rather, our struggle is against those who offer a false vision of Christian faith and for an authentically Christian vision. We are striving for a new reformation which advances the integrity of the biblical witness and the well-being of the global community.
“For 25 years, we have watched the religious right sever the biblical mandate to do social justice from what it means to practice genuine faith. Moderate and progressive Christians have framed ineffective and anemic responses.
“During the presidential election, the religious right reached its most hyper advancement of twisted reductionism. The religious right reduced Christian faith to five non-negotiable issues: anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, anti-homosexuality, anti-cloning and anti-euthanasia. They did this across their spectrum from Jerry Falwell to Rick Warren. Their reductionism was a shameful abandonment of the biblical witness.
“The religious right ducked the crystal clear biblical mandate to do social justice, defend the weak, seek peace, care for creation, practice kindness and walk with humility. They dodged the model of the Hebrew prophets who kept their distance from those in political power. They denied Jesus� warning that Caesar did not deserve complete and total loyalty.”
You can read the whole essay here: http://ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=4984
Note 4
What a difference a word makes. Change qualify the word “justice” with the word “social” and you create a whole new meaning. “Social justice” is always understood to mean the compulsory redistributive policies of a powerful government. We have an entire century — the 20th– full of examples of the utter failure of that policy. That seemingly benign impulse morphs into Stalin and Pol Pot in only a few years.
Robert Parham calls on Christians to
… defend the weak, seek peace, care for creation, practice kindness and walk with humility.
Who is weaker than the unborn? What war has killed 43 million defenseless and innocent people and continues to kill daily? What is kind about killing a living human being? Should Christians not speak out against the trivializing of human life? First, abortion for convenience, then using defenseless human embryos for medical experiments, then ridding ourselves of inconvenient old people. Mr. Parham actually calls himself a ethicist yets condemns those who refuse to look the other way. An odd form of morality is it not? All of these procedures–abortion, euthanasia, medical harvesting of embryos, are simply an exercise in granting the powerful more power over the powerless for the unquestioned convenience of the powerful.
Neither ideology is particularly consistent in these matters.
I’m not sure how one can belong to PETA and simultaneously support unrestricted abortion rights. (“Defenseless embryos” sounds a little odd, though.)
I am also not a socialist. People like Bill Gates may have enormous wealth, but the Bill Gates Foundation has contributed billions of dollars to good causes in a much more efficient and fair manner than the government ever could. This type of success should be encouraged, not punished.
Nevertheless, the question remains: what obligation does the government have to its citizens in need, whether they be elderly, disabled or unemployed? None? Some? I have not heard any conservative proposal for what, if anything, is “owed” to the citizens of this country in terms of health care or financial support. I know it’s “less” than socialized medicine and a welfare state, but what is it exactly?
Dean
Aren’t you substituting a faith in government for a faith in Christ. Didn’t Christ teach that his kingdom is not “of this world.” Isn’t the Christian message, one of the inner transformation of the individual. Are not Churchs assemblies of persons who have opened themselves to that transformation? At least Churchs are likely to be led by wise and holy persons.
We cannot constitutionally restrict public office to Christians. Non-Christian, even anti-Christian officials, can and will get elected. If Christians put their faith in the kind of mega government necessary to “improve human lives.” What assurance do we have that, if elected, such government officials will “improve human lifes” in a manner consistent with Christ’s teachings. Those officials have already legalized and promoted the killing of the unborn. I was under the impression that child sacrifice was formerly considered a marker of the pagan world.
Dean, if government had done a better job of “improving human lives.” If government hadn’t failed to miserably, so often and with such horrendous consequences, maybe I could take your position seriously. To be a socialist, one must wipe one’s mind of the history of the 20th Century. Now that the Berlin Wall has fallend and now that we can speak to persons who lived under Communisn, surely there is no excuse for such willfull blindness.
Remember it was religious Poland which led that the way out of the Communist prison by refusing to give all to government and by embracing its Christian faith. Any alliance between a true Church and the government will only sully the Church. I believe that there is a biblical warning about being “unequally yoked with unbelievers.” There is no more unequal partnership that Christians with government.
School choice would be a great place to start.
Looks like the Democrats are learning from their mistakes…
“We would like to see fewer abortions and we want our children to learn good values,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, a Catholic who has led her party’s efforts to reach religious voters and was chairwoman of its 2004 platform committee.
Democrats need to make the case that health care, jobs and sex education can reduce the number of abortion procedures, even without making them illegal, Ms. DeLauro said. At the same time, she said, they need to emphasize the religious imperatives behind “pushing for real health care reform, reluctance before war and alternatives to abortion, such as adoption,” as she put it in a letter to Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington signed by dozens of Catholics in Congress in the spring.
“An overwhelming number of Democrats are people of faith,” Ms. DeLauro said. “We need to be more explicit and more public about our convictions and our beliefs.”
“Some Democrats Believe the Party Should Get Religion” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/politics/17democrats.html?oref=login&th
Will Republicans, drunk on hubris after their 51%-49% victory, learn from their mistakes, and address their own moral shortcomings?
Listen to Father Hans. If you care about the Urban poor and want to do something to help them, then listen to them when they demand school vouchers so they can leave the Democrat dominated public school systems that fail to educate their children. Support those who are trying to give these people a choice over what school they send their children to. Stop the knee-jerk support of teacher’s unions, ACLU, and others who do everything they can to kill school choice.
And that’s just a start.