Religion in Democracy: Part II – The Movement to Theocracy

The movement begun by Jerry Falwell in the 1970’s involved an active pressure to reinvigorate parts of the citizenry that normally kept away from politics. A noble aim. Falwell hoped that he could bring Evangelical families out from the farthest folds of politics into much more active roles. Civic engagement is a good thing. He did this by establishing the Moral Majority.

The Moral Majority was initially begun in response to congressional threats of revoking the tax-exempt status of several local churches. Rev. Falwell needed to create a way to challenge the political wrongs being done to churches. The method was to turn parishioners into the new Conservative base.

After taking on the battle of tax-exemption status, the Moral Majority began to revel in its new found political power. Political pressure continued on and caused several more issues to be pressed in the American political realm. These issues are the outlawing of abortion, the opposition to state recognition and acceptance of homosexuality, the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, the enforcement of a traditional vision of family life, and the censorship of media outlets that promote an “anti-family” agenda. Oddly enough, these are all now in the WA State Republican Platform.

Their success was substantial. In the 1980 Presidential Election the Moral Majority is credited with providing 2/3 of the white evangelical vote to Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter.

The Moral Majority was officially dissolved in 1989 but is widely understood to live on in the Christian Coalition which has had battles of its own. Its successes are debatable but also quantifiable. Any organization that could distribute 70 Million Voter Guides in American Churches without sparking a media spectacle must have some ability to connect with church-goers.

While I think endorsing and supporting a candidate is a great way to influence politics, even via voters’ guide, some organizations’ campaign to create “moral law” in America is problematic.

It is the confining and constricting of people’s freedoms by way of morality that upsets people. You shouldn’t be able to force people to do something they don’t want to, if it doesn’t specifically interfere with another’s freedoms. But I suppose this line of logic could be used against democrats about poverty and social security programs.

There is the conservative belief that you shouldn’t take from one person to assist another. They shouldn’t have their economic freedoms because of another person’s poor choices or circumstances. The only difference in logic that potentially saves SSI and disability from becoming a double standard is that the violation of these economic freedoms is not for an individual’s Salvation but for a societal safety net that protects everyone from the problems that are associated with impoverished life. Not just providing food for the poor but also, protecting the majority of people not on any sort of state welfare from potentially worse crime rates should no welfare be given to the poorest sectors of society. If you don’t have food to eat, I might venture you’d steal it too.

The pressure towards creating moral laws becomes especially frightening as we see an increasing connection between these organizations and the Republican Party.

This is most notable when Joel Hunter was scheduled to assume presidency of the Christian Coalition on the first day of 2007. He hoped to expand the group to better represent Christ by focusing on issues such as poverty and the environment. He was told by current leadership that these issues were not core to the constituency. Instead of realigning his core values to the constituency’s he opted to decline the position.

Perhaps the GOP is slightly tighter with these organizations than most know. Next post, I hope to talk a little about this relationship and trying to figure out what the problems of an overly close knit relationship are and if anyone should really be worried.

Further Reading
A watchdog of the separation of church and state:
www.theocracywatch.org

Maybe you should assess the problem yourself in the WA State GOP platform:
www.wsrp.org/images/wa/2006_WSRP_Platform.pdf

Religion in Democracy: Part I – Individual Morality in the Public Sphere

So I initially set out to write a blog about the impact of religion in democracy.

After a lot of thinking I realized that the problem isn’t as easy to articulate as I initially supposed. What I thought was going to be a hashing out of the typical liberal complaints against religion in politics was confronted by a challenge that perhaps “open-minded liberalness” isn’t open-minded when it comes to judging religion. If we want to understand perhaps we should allow people their religious morality but just be explicit about the acceptable measures for its place in politics.

The problem of individual morality and politics appears to be separated into three distinct and complex issues. First, how far should we allow our personal beliefs to enter into the public sphere with us and what are our obligations once we arrive with them? Is there a shrinking of a neutral space to discuss issues frequently referred to as moral issues? Second, is there an actual (and legitimate) movement in the nation to convert us from a democracy to a theocracy? Third, is there an active betrayal by GOP leadership exploiting these moral issues in order to recruit a majority that can elect candidates who are significantly more focused on a nationalistic, pro-business agenda than one of morality?

I.

The debate within Christianity as to whether homosexuality is doctrinally wrong is still raging. You can see this just by googling homosexuality and the bible and seeing the contradicting viewpoints amongst church-going members flooding forums. For the purposes of Part I, I am going to make the leap, which I don’t believe is much of one, and assume that the bible says that homosexuality is wrong from the stories of Sodom in Genesis 19, or the quaint suggestion that "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination" in Leviticus 18:22, or from any of the other frequently referenced passages against homosexuality.

Once we think we have a clear understanding of what the bible says the only thing one has left to argue is the legitimacy of the Bible. That is not a route that I think would be too effective with many people willing to make the argument that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so. Thus, there is an obligation not to take the argument in this route but instead, place it in universal terms that don’t end with the challenging of biblical legitimacy.

Instead, we should perhaps address whose rights are being violated by allowing the practice of homosexuality. I don’t think that this is a universal indicator of morality, but gives a great benchmark as to whether the moral issue should be applied to the whole citizenry. Is anyone being wronged in this situation? Is the sole problem that homosexuals are committing themselves to the fires of hell and the Christian obligation is to save them? Shouldn’t they be allowed to choose the fires of hell and not be required by the state to choose one way or the other as long as their actions do not interfere with someone else's freedoms?

The immigrant formation of this country was comprised of many people wishing to escape the forceful persecution by monarchs and other subjective authorities. This is why you see the Bill of Rights to our Constitution largely pointed at deterring monarchy as well as the unjust forcing of governmental power on a population.

I think the obligation of our country is to continue to respect minority rights and not force ideology. If there is a considerable portion of the population which wishes to commit an act frequently called sin but this act does not infringe on another’s rights the state has an obligation to freedom to allow it.

I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them. It’s my job. – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Please post what I've missed or any further thoughts below.

Next week: Part 2, Can a democratic people elect to be a theocracy? Are we doing it?

Further reading on religion in America:

Religion in the Military http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/26atheist.html?_r=1&ex=1366862400&en=36462b6b00ad4a38&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Alternative views that perhaps the bible is more tolerant than traditionally presented?
www.religioustolerance.org

Obama's Opinion on Faith in the Public Sphere
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php

Are you okay?

Today was a story of personal contact for the books. It began with the meeting of the most wonderful family in Lake Forest Park.

The ease with which they accepted three strangers into the recesses of their home and shared their family pictures and life stories was a level of invitation I had never experienced before. They treated us as if we were not strangers but family friends who were coming to see the new place.

The bus ride back downtown was crowded. There was a woman maybe fifty standing in the aisle next to me. I offered her my seat and she accepted it with a sincere look of thanks. (I've been attempting to do the little good deeds whenever the opportunity presents itself since high school, holding doors, helping with furniture, giving up my seat and then making a deliberate effort not to tell anyone. It would invalidate my motives if I told people. Forgive me for invalidating for the sake of a story.) A small birthday lunch for a friend at the public market and we were on the bus home.

We were forced to the back. You remember elementary school where the back of the bus housed the troublemakers. Public transportation is elementary school all over again. Naomi sat in the open seat. I stood and Ai was going to stand as well. Then a military looking 50 year old man with a mustache and the equivalent of a five o'clock shadow over his otherwise bald head rose to give Ai his seat. I smiled one of those idealistic smiles. The kind that sneaks out when you realize that maybe life can be like a cheesy insurance commercial where good deeds spread.

Life is not a cheesy insurance commercial.

After Ai sat, this man said, "God Dammit, there isn't a man under 30 who knows what it is to be a good man anymore. What happened to chivalry?" clearly directed at the twenty-or-so university student sitting next to him. It earned the clever retort from the student, "I guess most girls these days would prefer not being treated as inferiors". The bald guy pretended not to have heard and then began to commiserate with the only other 30+ male on the bus.

"Respect your elders". An evil cliché. Respect Wisdom. Age is not Wisdom.

Enter 30+ guy 2.

"Ahhh, hitting up the Icehouse" began the commiseration. "You know it, buddy". Screeched the well dressed but disgustingly drunk, greasy man as he proceeded to act as if he owned the entire tail end of the bus.

I've seen drinking on public transportation before. It's no problem when people are hoping to just be left alone. When people are seeking attention they usually find it. The two wise men shared stories of how to best mix Vicodin and hard liquor and how the "clean and sober" housing on Pike never "checks". Nearly bald guy suggested to be careful about mixing, he was a medic in the Navy back in the day. Mr. Icehouse began to whine on about how people hated him for his Native blood and how great this UW Pow Wow was going to be.

It was when he started directly questioning the girl sitting directly next to him about what made her, her friend and all other little Asian girls so hot that I became fed up with abrasive ignorance overwhelming respect.

"Are you okay?" was my simple question to him.

A look of relief came over the girl and a strangely befuddled one came over him. He asked me what I'd said.

I repeated, "Are you okay?"

At which point the two began a tirade of how "He could kick my ass", "Bitch, ask me if I'm okay again" and "not a good one under 30". I smirked at the irony that the under-30 comment had originally been made about chivalry and here I was stepping in on her behalf and still "not a good one". I had no doubt that either one of them could easily have killed me with their bare hands which is probably why my courage got off the bus about 20 minutes before me.

I turned and ignored them for the rest of the ride which was difficult since I was standing next to the bald guy and about 3 feet from Mr. Icehouse and "his woman".

All I know is that sometimes you hit a wall when it comes to breaking through to people. Sometimes it is impossible to understand where someone is coming from because there is a close-mindedness there that results in a lack of logic. Sometimes they can't see that not all young people are evil or that people don't hate them for their blood. Sometime they're unwilling to connect the irony that a bus ride to the Pow Wow about women's rights is not a good time to verbally molest the girl next to you. Sometimes they're flat unwilling to see things from a different point of view.

I've been reflecting for the last four hours on what I could've said or what I should've done to make that turn out better. Called the police? Told the driver? Traded seats with the girl sitting next to him? I'm not sure. All I know is that, stupidly, I feel guilty that I didn't continue the conversation with him. That I couldn't get him to understand what I was saying. That warm lead haze of frustration floats back over me.

Stay open-minded.

About this Blog.

This blog is an identity construction project, meaning it will provide information which allows people to change how they identify with their world. I will attempt to evaluate current news stories and suggest alternative interpretations which remove constricting lenses leaving behind unconstrained views. The blog will span the spectrum from personal experiences with individuals to international news stories. Looking at intra-class experiences with Seattle's homeless to alternate explanations of US actions such as protecting Americans by shooting down a failing weather satellite.

I hope that this blog will provide me an opportunity to organize my thoughts and clarify my understanding of what is lacking in the daily cable news circuit. Cable news has the unfortunate effect of being biased. Usually, it has the bias of American media, conforming to American ideals, such as fighting for freedom, democracy, the working class. I think in the same way, my life has been biased by the relatively narrow selection of ideas that I've been exposed to. This blog is an attempt to step out.