In Protest of Evangelicalism Part 1: Christians
June 9, 2008 12 Comments
One thing that has bothered me tremendously about the current state of the Republican party is the dis-proportional amount of power that fundamentalists and evangelicals have been given as a reward for their loyalty and their ability to deliver votes. I first discussed this problem with a post entitled ‘Dealing with the Religious Right’ but I would like to expand on it a bit.
As we all know, these voters came aboard with Reagan as one-issue voters strongly opposed to abortion. Under George W. Bush the GOP tacked on the additional issues of gay marriage, intelligent design, prayer in schools and the Ten Commandments in court rooms. While I am happy to support the fight to end abortion in this country and I have real reservations about gay marriage, the other two issues are ridiculous.
The Ten Commandments in court rooms is just plain silly. I am not going to waste my readers’ time even discussing this issue. Anyone with common sense should recognize those efforts for what they are. As for Intelligent Design, this issue poses a real danger. While I do not think it will ever become common across the country, there is an alarmingly increase in jurisdictions allowing ID. I am saddened that many of them are in my beloved South and frankly, it makes us look stupid.
I’m not going to turn this into an ID post, so we’ll just say this: The teaching of Intelligent Design violates every rule of scholarly thought that I can think of. It’s not that it is bad science…it just ISN’T science. Let me emphasisize this point: Intelligent Design should never, ever, ever be taught in a public-school science classroom. To do so does a tremendous disservice to our children and I believe it violates the Establishment Clause. If you can find a way to insert it into a humanities class right after your discussion of other Creation Myths, knock yourselves out, but if you really cared about your kids you would save it for Sunday school.
Before that detour, I was disccusing the problem with evangelicals and the GOP. From my perspective our affiliation with the so-called ‘Religious Right’ causes more trouble than it is worth. As someone who believes in the strengths of real conservatism, I like the votes these guys bring to the table, but i don’t like it influencing policy in a non-secular way. As I stated previously, “We cannot go to independent and liberal voters and ever hope to win their support when we make our arguements for public policy with a Bible in one hand. We have to learn how to legislate these moral issues with a non-religious rationale. “
Our opposition to abortion rests on the premise that it violates the most basic of human rights i.e. the right to live. That is a right that the atheist, the Buddhist and thr Christian should all be able to agree on. When we are unwilling to debate pro-abortion folks on secular moral grounds it gives the impression that we cannot frame our arguement without the help of the supernatural. Liberals and some independents are going to see that as an admission of defeat. I think they would have a strong case to do so.
As for evangelicism itself, I sort of don’t get it. My personal background is that I was raised in the Catholic church. Although I don’t actively participate anymore, I still consider myself a member of the Catholic community (I’m sure other fallen Catholics will get this). One thing I still love about the Church is that it doesn’t really have a strong evangelical tradition. They have mostly chosen to rely on inherited faith and it may explain why their numbers have dwindled. But this lack of evangelicalism has always appealed to me. It suited my personal feelings on faith.
I have always believed that faith was deeply personal. For myself, it is something I struggle with every single day. But I also believe the glory is in the struggle and I am a stronger person for having my doubts and trying to work through them. I could not imagine going door to door or turning to a co-worker and asking them if they’ve heard about Jesus. It seems like such a violation of someone’s privacy. So, yes, I have a real problem with evangelicalism. I also don’t like that they used the GOP to spread their beliefs (although the ‘using’ was reciprocal).
Despite my misgivings on evangelicalism, I also understand the tradition. I understand that they see themselves as following the example of Christ and the Apostles, who also spread the word. So in that sense, I have to allow them their beliefs. But i don’t have to let them in my home, the local courtroom or my children’s schools. What we need is to draw a line in the sand and say, “Hey you evangelicals, come a step closer and we are bringing out the howitzers”. That line is in the places I just mentioned. It’s in your workplace. It’s in anyplace that religious beliefs should not be discussed. THAT is where we draw the line. When they cross that line, it should be their fellow Christians who are the first to speak up. We should be leading the fight against a brand of evangelical Christianity that is not about spreading the word, it is about subversion. On the flip side though, when their efforts are confined to annoying billboards, TV commercials and other appropriate settings, we have to let them be. That is the deal we must strike. That is the bargain.
this is a really good post. i very much enjoyed reading it, and i can’t believe i am the only comment so far! your compatriots should be clamoring in agreement with you, carrying you on their virtual, blogging shoulders. i’m pro-choice, so we will always have to agree to disagree on that issue, but on everything else …
i just don’t understand: if the republican party really is populated by cooler heads, such as yours, then WHY have we — as a country — had to contend with the religious right for the last nearly 30 years?
and a lot of the posturing by politicians is pandering, pure and simple. when you really get down to it, how much of the religious right’s agenda has made it through to substantive law? … the way the rhetoric has been thrown around, our constitution should have an additional dozen or so amendments by now. (the one area inroads have been made is on the abortion front … all of the small lawsuits that are effectively killing abortion rights by attrition.)
and while the politicians pander with red-herring moral crises, the republican party has MASSIVELY increased deficit spending (and the national debt) and in the last eight years gotten us into one helluva mess in the middle east.
where’s barry goldwater when you need him?! really. i’m not kidding.
Thank you for commenting! I thought that post would generate more responses as well. It’s funny how excited I get when I see that little comment icon blinking on my admin panel.
i just don’t understand: if the republican party really is populated by cooler heads, such as yours, then WHY have we — as a country — had to contend with the religious right for the last nearly 30 years?
The Religious Right is obviously just the last of many waves of religious influence on politics in the U.S. As I said in the post, initially they came on board with the GOP in a shared concern over abortion. That was fine. But then they leveraged their ability to attract a lot of voters to the Republican Party and gained more influence than they deserved. Fast forward to George W. Bush and he was happy to open the door to their more ridiculous causes, like ID and the Ten Commandments in courthouses.
I truly believe their power is fading as a solid voting block. I did a piece awhile back where I talked about how young evangelicals were no longer a dependable voting block for the GOP because they had different priorities than their parents (the environment, for example). If evangelicals fracture it will be a good thing for this country. I don’t like big voting blocks to begin with and big voting blocks voting based on their religious beliefs scares me a bit.
but, again, that “influence” has amounted to very little in terms of any substantive moral legislation. it does produce a lot of arm waving and knuckle gnawing and gasping … while the real stuff happens behind the scenes … karl rove exploited the evangelical vote to attempt to completely annihilate the democratic party and while he kept everyone busy with ridiculous religiosity and faux scandal in election years, dick cheney focused on changing the balance of power among the three branches and (with wolfowitz) experimenting with their long-rejected-but-finally-able-to-implement-on-their-own foreign policy plans.
if i were an evangelical, i’d be hoppin’ mad.
but i’m not … and i hope their “power” is fading, but on the chance that it doesn’t fade, what is the response progressive conservatives should have? to vote with them begrudgingly? not to vote? to vote for the opposing party? which is the least of the evils?
***
btw: lapsed/recovering/fallen catholic here, too.
***
(we also have comment-gasms; though, we have a lot less material to comment on, and the grandparents, we think, don’t understand the comment interface … which might be a good thing.)
You raise a valid point. How much has really been acheived to satisfy evangelicals? Other than two solidly conservative Supreme Court justices, not much. Abortion is still legal, gay marriage is slowly making progress, prayer isn’t allowed in public schools, ID is being fought with vigor, Terry Schiavo is resting in peace, etc.
It has been a tragic relationship in a way. Both sides intended to use one another (conciously or not) and neither has benefitted long-term. Evangelicals have not gotten what they wanted, but Republicans have also been hurt. The merging of religion and politics has fired up the Left in ways that may never be repaired. I see the explosion of atheism among liberals and I cannot call it anything other than reactionary (a preview of Part 2). Yes, i’m sure there were some godless liberals floating around, but it seems like at least half of the liberal blogs I visit now are enthusiatically atheist or at least anti-religion. That is the fault of the GOP.
“When they cross that line, it should be their fellow Christians who are the first to speak up. We should be leading the fight against a brand of evangelical Christianity that is not about spreading the word, it is about subversion. ”
Amen! Faith should be about love, and you’re not showing me love by forcing me to listen to a view I personally and spiritually disagree with simply because you’ll get a brand new leather Bible if you bring ten friends to your adult prayer circle next week.
I have always tried to live my life by the phrase my Sunday school teacher told me: “Your walk talks louder than your talk talks.”
Don’t tell me about your faith. SHOW me your faith. Then I’ll be more open to listening. I have to see you living it before I can handle you telling it.
On a side note, I totally understand your non-practicing Catholic mentality. *grin*
In faith and love,
NP
I have always tried to live my life by the phrase my Sunday school teacher told me: “Your walk talks louder than your talk talks.”
I aggree. When I attend church it is my wife’s Methodist church. I enjoy this church because as I walk through the halls of the adjacent buildings, sit in a pew or attend a program throughout the week, I am greeted by smiles. It is literally the happiest congregation i have ever been around. These folks don’t try to convert, they don’t try to change me. Instead they won me over with their example as a people of faith and in the way they treat others. It is a real community and not just a place to worship.
I must say though that most often my church is watching the sun come up from a deer stand or a duck blind. I feel God’s hand in those moments.
Hello, Progressive Conservative.
I read this a couple of days ago, but sadly, it was too late for me to stay up to comment.
Odd thing is, I’ve been planning (as part 3 of a series) a post on coalitions within political parties, using the religious right as an example.
The upshot is that there’s not so much difference in the congressional system as the parliamentary system. Where the difference is narrow, that swing vote has an inordinate amount of power. This is typically follwed by a bit of bullying by a slim minority. From this comes resentments against that minority. Them the minority sees a sudden fall from power once their vote is no longer a swing vote.
I used to think that I was pro-choice, until I came to the understanding that Pro-choice meant ‘without oversight.’ This is an extraordinary circumstance. You see, abortion is legal in America up until the 23rd week. In England, it is legal up until the 24th week, but proposed (and highly popular) legislation will soon change that to the 20th week. And I find it rather odd that the push toward this is opposite from that of Europe.
More in a response to a previous comment:
that “influence” has amounted to very little in terms of any substantive moral legislation.
Consider the Contract with America. The basis here was to focus on issues with 60% support. And so, school prayer and abortion were left out of it.
Even so, as a body of legislation, it was rather succesful, at about 40% of its articles incorporated into law.
Our government just doesn’t have that great of an efficiency rating, even in instances of broad and popular support.
As for the evangelicals, I see them as a necessary counter-weight. The tide goes in, and the tide goes out. It happens wave by wave, if you’ve ever seen it.
My main complaint with them is that they often tend to substitute the party platform for the scripture.
And I know of this because I’ve befriended a few rabbis over the years.
The Jewish teaching (from the same scripture, mind you) about immigration is far removed from what this group would observe on the basis of the very same scripture.
And what of usury? Where is their God?
It’s really an untenable pairing, that those who would advocate most those laissez-faire economics tend to be far more liberal socially than the median, yet those who are more traditional is their social mores would advocate on their behalf to their own detriment.
That said, protestantism, as a whole, has already established a rich tradition– several of them.
The astounding– awe-inspiring– thing is that it’s still evolving and taking shape.
“pro-choice” does not mean “without oversight”, but i don’t want to argue semantics. minds don’t change on the issue of abortion. (i’m laughing at the thought of me — stay-at-home mom — as an pro-choice anarchist.)
what i do want to say, pc, above my wanting to comment on your interesting usage of “reactionary” and the fact that you didn’t answer my question, is — in my best, drooling homer simpson impression …
“uhhhhh, venison … uhhhhh, duck …”
YUM!
@ didionsmommy
but i’m not … and i hope their “power” is fading, but on the chance that it doesn’t fade, what is the response progressive conservatives should have? to vote with them begrudgingly? not to vote? to vote for the opposing party? which is the least of the evils?
Sorry I missed those questions DM…
I think the response is simple enough…cut religion out of the equation. If you want to be pro-life, base it on a shared public morality that celebrates life. If you are anti-gay marriage, have a debate on the institutionalization of marriage by the government, not on the Bible.
The way progressive conservatives have to fight the power of evangelicals is to not let ourselves be drawn into a fight where we defend our principles based on biblical teachings. That plays right into the hands of a Left that is extremely hostile to organized religion. We can share the same goals as evangelicals. It’s what those goals are based upon that we differ and we must demonstrate that.
“uhhhhh, venison … uhhhhh, duck …”
YUM!
I prefer dove and rabbit, but I do like venison and duck. ; )
minds don’t change on the issue of abortion.
I can’t say i agree. I was an avowed pro-choicer until about 2 minutes after my daughter was born. I never looked back.
i’m a mother, and i am still pro-choice, which does not mean — contrary to the simplified, public characterization of the pro-choice electorate — abortion is not a complex, difficult, serious, very personal decision between a woman and her doctor. it is not without cost (financial, physical, emotional), much of which lasts a lifetime for the woman. and abortion does not exist merely for convenience. i know several women who have had abortions, and NOT ONE of them was without serious consideration of ALL options. Three of them were due to very serious health issues; those women wanted desperately to be mothers, but they chose to terminate to spare their children inevitable great pain, suffering, and death. all three of those women were married; their spouses were as involved in the decisions as they, and one of those three women, by the way, is a registered republican. she considers herself a conservative.
it is an enormously complex and — again — personal issue.
i think the pro-life movement characterizes pro-choice as meaning something like, “hey, chickadee, are you preggo? no prob! go out and abort, and then PAAAAARRRR-TAY at our place later … no sweat!”
and a lot of that characterization is the result of a militant early feminist movement that went way over-the-top in alienating human emotion in its nascent treatises, a policy choice that continues to negatively affect women (and men).
but i will always and forever be pro-choice. abortion has existed for as long as homo sapiens have been self aware. it will always exist. the question becomes whether we want to ensure that it is safe for our sisters and our daughters, should they decide that this is the option they need to take.