Our society has been paralyzed by an extreme ideological polarization. A social dynamic that has been ongoing for nearly 40 years has evolved our society into a static blue funk that just won't go away. Instead of our previous full spectrum of opinions and inclinations, everyone, whether they like it or not, is being pushed to choose between either of the two extreme ends of the spectrum on just about every key issue, and without a doubt, the most contentious and central of all these issues is the matter of religion.
The possibility of an organized national effort by certain Republican leaders to circumvent the true will of the majority in this nation's democratic government was discussed in a previous post (The Curious Case of the Republican Cabal). This post details the hyper-partisanship polarization that is one of the key strategies used by this cabal for dividing and conquering this nation's true majority intent in favor of their minority positions. The most recent Trump Executive Order on Religious Liberties is a good illustration of that polarization strategy in action.
The dangerous potential of religion has been very apparent for some time. History is full of instances where squabbles and rancor between different religions over territory and more importantly followers have erupted into long standing conflicts, hostilities, and even war. Even within the same religion, those with somewhat different religious belief interpretations from the larger group to which they belong are typically regarded (and sometimes punished) as heretics.
In an attempt to guard against these religious dangers, the US Constitution specifically establishes a wall of separation
between Church and State in its first amendment. The founders of this country especially
Thomas Jefferson knew that religion and politics were a volatile and
dangerous combination that should never be mixed, and the pure political genius of the separation
of church and state as laid out in the Constitution was preserved and respected for nearly 200 years before it began to be
disturbed.
In all religions, there are a majority of well-intentioned persons looking for fellowship and seeking some higher spiritual meaning to life. These people practice their religion in moderation and with tolerance of others. Their religion gives them comfort as they go through the process of living their lives and especially as they approach their death. There is no harm or foul in their particular religious practice.
Religion becomes a problem when the message is taken too literally (i.e. the fundamentalists), and there is a desire to push that particular religious belief on everyone else (i.e. the evangelicals). When these two religious extremes merged in the formation of the Christian Right, this political movement set about trying to apply their specific interpretation of Christianity into government to influence the creation of law and public policy. They were quick to claim their religious freedom rights but reluctant to extend that favor to other religions as a fundamental, Constitutionally guaranteed right.
This political movement evolved largely from existing grassroots evangelical and fundamentalist Christian activism that was already in place and could quickly motivate their electorate around certain key issues. Initially their key issues were derived from their socially conservative positions on issues such as school prayer, creationism (aka intelligent design), repression of human sexuality (e.g. contraception, abortion, and homosexuality), and pornography.
Most of the people who believe in Christianity are not rich. They are a mix people ranging from rich to very poor with the distribution of numbers skewed in the direction of poor. While the act of believing in Christianity is not going to make you rich, the process of leading the masses to Jesus can be be very lucrative for those leaders who not shy about asking for donations (wealthy Christian Leaders). These wealthy Christian leaders shared many of the same Big Money Interests of other wealthy people.
This tendency to be rich is especially true for those leaders who profess Prosperity Theology a belief among some Christians that faith, positive speech, and especially donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth. This prosperity theology is a lot like the Republican trickle-down theory of economics in that it very effectively redistributes wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. Both theories are based on the false notion that if you bless the rich with the option to keep most of their money, eventually it will trickle-down in the form of good paying jobs or heavenly blessings. Trickle-down economics like Prosperity Theology rewards those at the top very handsomely but rarely do those rewards find their way to those who make sacrifices and donations at the bottom.
The alignment with the racists/xenophobes was also assisted by a preexisting foothold in the mantle of the Christian Right. A natural tendency to segregation already existed in Christianity in their belief they had greater or exclusive favor of god by virtue of having accepted the terms and conditions to be adopted into the fold. This notion that they are the correct and chosen ones has resulted in contentious relationships with those who hold different beliefs. They like to distance themselves from these outsiders through various discriminatory means. These lines of discrimination are frequently draw along lines of race, religion, or sexual preference.
One example in particular (i.e Bob Jones University) illustrates quite clearly the history of racism in the founders of the Christian Right. The Bob Jones University position on segregation was summarized by Bob Jones Sr.'s 1960 Easter Sunday broadcast sermon entitled "Is Segregation Scriptural?" in which Jones declared "If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty".
In addition to this clear declaration of support for segregation, the university also had a long history of supporting politicians who were considered aligned with racial segregation. As late as 2000 when presidential candidate George W. Bush gave a standard stump speech at the university, his political opponents quickly noted his failure to mention of the university's existing ban on interracial dating.
Clearly, racist and xenophobic elements existed in the Christian Right since its inception.
The core issues identified in the Culture Wars were an extension of the original Christian Right issues that included other issues not so clearly church related such as federal and state gun laws, climate change, immigration, personal privacy, recreational drug use, censorship, and new interpretations of the Constitution's separation of church and state mandate. Ultimately, even health care was added to this list. This extended range of issues were largely the result of the Christian Right's new found alliances with big money interest and the racist/xenophobes in the Republican Cabal as they collectively engaged in the culture wars.
The Christian Right continued to have the lead role because they had the cover of being righteous, a large contingent of voters, and the strong polarizing effect of religion. They also had a lot of power in telling their congregation what to believe
Christian religious leaders control the scripture and its interpretation. They have a lot of opportunity to insert personal opinions and prejudices in those scriptures (e.g. Schofield Reference Bible). Through the ages there have been church leaders with personal opinions who wanted to insert their thinking into church doctrine. In some cases, these insertions were done to promote a cause they thought had been overlooked. In other cases, they were trying manipulate thinking a more selfish way.
Religion is something for which people typically have very strong feelings. Whether they believe in a creator or not, those who choose the have an opinion generally hold that opinion with great passion. These differing beliefs about the nature of god and more importantly, what that god expects of us are very polarizing of themselves, but the intensity of the religious mindset has such a strong polarizing potential that it can induce polarization in other areas that are not directly religious in nature. In the case of these newly added, non church related issues, they were frequently adopted with this same religious passion.
The Christianity approach that demands blind faith and reserves primary interpretation of the message for the religious leaders makes the congregations vulnerable to ideologically manipulation. This vulnerability is a key element in the corrosive effect of religious alignment with government. This tendency serves the cabal's other core ideologies well because these extended ideas could be presented to the Christian Right voters from the pulpit to congregation voters as religious doctrine that needs to be believed without question.
The Christian Right
In the late 1970's, a religious interest formally became a political movement that entered US politics affiliated with the Republican party. It was formed by a coalition of conservative Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists. By their account, this movement was formed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s legalization of abortion in the Roe v Wade decision, but some believe and have reported the Christian Right’s real motive was to protect their segregated schools. In either case, this political movement coupled the inherently high polarizing capacity of religion with the highly contentious social issues of abortion and segregation. What could possibly go wrong?In all religions, there are a majority of well-intentioned persons looking for fellowship and seeking some higher spiritual meaning to life. These people practice their religion in moderation and with tolerance of others. Their religion gives them comfort as they go through the process of living their lives and especially as they approach their death. There is no harm or foul in their particular religious practice.
Religion becomes a problem when the message is taken too literally (i.e. the fundamentalists), and there is a desire to push that particular religious belief on everyone else (i.e. the evangelicals). When these two religious extremes merged in the formation of the Christian Right, this political movement set about trying to apply their specific interpretation of Christianity into government to influence the creation of law and public policy. They were quick to claim their religious freedom rights but reluctant to extend that favor to other religions as a fundamental, Constitutionally guaranteed right.
This political movement evolved largely from existing grassroots evangelical and fundamentalist Christian activism that was already in place and could quickly motivate their electorate around certain key issues. Initially their key issues were derived from their socially conservative positions on issues such as school prayer, creationism (aka intelligent design), repression of human sexuality (e.g. contraception, abortion, and homosexuality), and pornography.
How the Pieces Came Together
The coupling of the Christian Right and the other Republican Cabal ideologies of Big Money Interests and Racists/Xenophobes came about quite organically. The Christian Right was just the right seed crystal onto which these other two ideologies could be grown because the Christian Right already contained similar elements.Most of the people who believe in Christianity are not rich. They are a mix people ranging from rich to very poor with the distribution of numbers skewed in the direction of poor. While the act of believing in Christianity is not going to make you rich, the process of leading the masses to Jesus can be be very lucrative for those leaders who not shy about asking for donations (wealthy Christian Leaders). These wealthy Christian leaders shared many of the same Big Money Interests of other wealthy people.
This tendency to be rich is especially true for those leaders who profess Prosperity Theology a belief among some Christians that faith, positive speech, and especially donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth. This prosperity theology is a lot like the Republican trickle-down theory of economics in that it very effectively redistributes wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. Both theories are based on the false notion that if you bless the rich with the option to keep most of their money, eventually it will trickle-down in the form of good paying jobs or heavenly blessings. Trickle-down economics like Prosperity Theology rewards those at the top very handsomely but rarely do those rewards find their way to those who make sacrifices and donations at the bottom.
The alignment with the racists/xenophobes was also assisted by a preexisting foothold in the mantle of the Christian Right. A natural tendency to segregation already existed in Christianity in their belief they had greater or exclusive favor of god by virtue of having accepted the terms and conditions to be adopted into the fold. This notion that they are the correct and chosen ones has resulted in contentious relationships with those who hold different beliefs. They like to distance themselves from these outsiders through various discriminatory means. These lines of discrimination are frequently draw along lines of race, religion, or sexual preference.
One example in particular (i.e Bob Jones University) illustrates quite clearly the history of racism in the founders of the Christian Right. The Bob Jones University position on segregation was summarized by Bob Jones Sr.'s 1960 Easter Sunday broadcast sermon entitled "Is Segregation Scriptural?" in which Jones declared "If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty".
In addition to this clear declaration of support for segregation, the university also had a long history of supporting politicians who were considered aligned with racial segregation. As late as 2000 when presidential candidate George W. Bush gave a standard stump speech at the university, his political opponents quickly noted his failure to mention of the university's existing ban on interracial dating.
Clearly, racist and xenophobic elements existed in the Christian Right since its inception.
The Culture Wars
In 1991, a book was published (i.e. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America by James Davison Hunter) that introduced the concept and term 'culture war' into the vocabulary of US politics. In this book, the culture war is described as the conflict between conservative and liberal values that dramatically realigned and polarized US politics and culture around certain core issues.The core issues identified in the Culture Wars were an extension of the original Christian Right issues that included other issues not so clearly church related such as federal and state gun laws, climate change, immigration, personal privacy, recreational drug use, censorship, and new interpretations of the Constitution's separation of church and state mandate. Ultimately, even health care was added to this list. This extended range of issues were largely the result of the Christian Right's new found alliances with big money interest and the racist/xenophobes in the Republican Cabal as they collectively engaged in the culture wars.
The Christian Right continued to have the lead role because they had the cover of being righteous, a large contingent of voters, and the strong polarizing effect of religion. They also had a lot of power in telling their congregation what to believe
Christian religious leaders control the scripture and its interpretation. They have a lot of opportunity to insert personal opinions and prejudices in those scriptures (e.g. Schofield Reference Bible). Through the ages there have been church leaders with personal opinions who wanted to insert their thinking into church doctrine. In some cases, these insertions were done to promote a cause they thought had been overlooked. In other cases, they were trying manipulate thinking a more selfish way.
Religion is something for which people typically have very strong feelings. Whether they believe in a creator or not, those who choose the have an opinion generally hold that opinion with great passion. These differing beliefs about the nature of god and more importantly, what that god expects of us are very polarizing of themselves, but the intensity of the religious mindset has such a strong polarizing potential that it can induce polarization in other areas that are not directly religious in nature. In the case of these newly added, non church related issues, they were frequently adopted with this same religious passion.
The Christianity approach that demands blind faith and reserves primary interpretation of the message for the religious leaders makes the congregations vulnerable to ideologically manipulation. This vulnerability is a key element in the corrosive effect of religious alignment with government. This tendency serves the cabal's other core ideologies well because these extended ideas could be presented to the Christian Right voters from the pulpit to congregation voters as religious doctrine that needs to be believed without question.
The Religious Liberty Executive Order
On Thursday, Trump signed a campaign promised Executive Order on religious liberty that among other things allows clergy members and houses of worship to endorse political candidates from the pulpit by easing the now famous Johnson Amendment's restrictions against such behavior. This specific action is not popular in most public opinion polls of the American public as a whole or even among religious leaders. There are even some evangelicals who think that partisan politics have no place in churches.
An early draft of this Executive Order was leaked in February, containing provisions that included grant exemptions for religious believers,
schools and corporations to federal laws they thought were in conflict with their religious beliefs. Some of these exemptions specifically targeted
the LGBT community and abortion rights. Some thought it would have established broad exemptions
for people and groups to claim religious objections under virtually any
circumstance. Many saw the draft Executive Order as a government-license to discriminate.
In response to this criticism, the White House disavowed the leaked draft and set about revisions for a final draft that was drastically rewritten eliminating much of the LGBT-specific attacks and any mention of abortion. The new order does however direct federal officials to consider changing health care regulations in order to stop insurance coverage of contraception for huge swaths of women in addition to the language that undermines a law meant to discourage religious authorities from using their powers to influence elections.
Some conservative religious leaders were reported to be disappointed with the new revised scope of the Executive Order. They had fully expected that it would exempted their organizations from Obama-era regulations aimed at protecting gay people from their religious discrimination. They were looking for legal cover from the Executive Order in the form of relief for religious groups and charities that object to serving or hiring gay, bisexual or transgender people.
In response to this criticism, the White House disavowed the leaked draft and set about revisions for a final draft that was drastically rewritten eliminating much of the LGBT-specific attacks and any mention of abortion. The new order does however direct federal officials to consider changing health care regulations in order to stop insurance coverage of contraception for huge swaths of women in addition to the language that undermines a law meant to discourage religious authorities from using their powers to influence elections.
Some conservative religious leaders were reported to be disappointed with the new revised scope of the Executive Order. They had fully expected that it would exempted their organizations from Obama-era regulations aimed at protecting gay people from their religious discrimination. They were looking for legal cover from the Executive Order in the form of relief for religious groups and charities that object to serving or hiring gay, bisexual or transgender people.
The Johnson Amendment
The Johnson Amendment threatens religious organizations and charities with loss of their tax-exempt status if they endorse or oppose political candidates. The restriction was promoted by Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954 after a conservative nonprofit group (no church was involved in its inception) with its own political agenda produced material in favor of Johnson's primary opponent with the intent of defeating Johnson. Many believe this was Johnson's motivation for proposing the amendment.
The Johnson Amendment which applies to any charitable organization seeking tax-exempt status was added to the federal tax code where such organizations were designated by the code 501(c)(3). This designation included groups organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes such as religious, scientific, and educational. It simply stated that absolution from tax liability is forfeited for being involved in partisan politics. It was not considered controversial at the time (it was agreed to without any record of discussion or debate) and was continued without controversy in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 enacted during the Ronald Reagan administration.
The Johnson Amendment prevents campaign contributions from being funneled through 501(c)(3) organizations which would mean this amendment prevents political contributions from being tax-deductible for donors. Since churches are exempt from the reporting requirements required of other 501(c)(3) organizations, they present a special opportunity for creating a mechanism where political contributions could be made in violation of relevant campaign financing laws. Majorities of both the general public and of clergy oppose repeal of this amendment, and The National Council of Nonprofits and the Independent Sector, a coalition of nonprofits, foundations, and corporations have stated their opposition to the repeal the Johnson Amendment.
This amendment is controversial now because clever political strategist have come to recognize the tremendous campaign potential that exists in properly motivated religions. Without the Johnson Amendment, there is a risk that someone might create arguably fake churches to be used as a mechanism to obtain anonymous, tax-deductible contributions to spend on political activity. In effect, a church could conceivably become it own super PAC. Nobody wanted to repeal this amendment until the last few decades when it became apparent there was a huge political advantage that could be gained from doing it.
Classic Cabal Two Step Approach
The possibility of losing their tax-exempt status is a serious threat to many Christian Right leaders especially those making huge amounts of money under this tax-exempt cover. They feel seriously threaten by the Johnson amendment. Since complaining about the tax evasion and political donation disclosures benefits of the amendment would look petty and give their real positions away, the Christian Right has framed its arguments against the Johnson amendment in the context of the high-ground arguments of suppression of free speech and an entanglement of the IRS in the operation of their religion.In the course of trying to make it appear to be a matter of suppression of free speech instead of the real issues of tax evasion and circumventing campaign finance laws, the Christian Right is following its very typical two step process of inventing a problem for the solution they want to force into place. These two steps in the case of the Johnson Amendment are:
Step 1: Convince the majority that the Johnson Amendment is causing a great injustice by denying clergy their free speech right to make political comment when in fact, the only thing preventing these clergy from making free political comments is their own personal desire to be tax-exempt. One such recent effort is the Pulpit Freedom Initiative which urged Protestant ministers to violate the statute in protest. For example, pastors in 20 states organized to give politically-oriented sermons to protest the law in 2008. A Washington Post report found that of the more than 2,000 Christian clergy deliberately challenging the law since 2008, only one has been audited, and none have been punished. Historically, the Johnson Amendment has never prevented religious organizations from issuing endorsements.
Step 2: Work across the 3 branches of government to get the amendment repealed, challenged and thrown out in court, or diluted by Executive Order as follows:
Judicial: Position the amendment for a judicial challenge by getting someone punished and pursue the matter through conservative dominated courts to get the Supreme Court to reject it.
Legislative: Repeal or alter the amendment. Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would allow all 501(c)(3) organizations to support political candidates, as long as any associated spending was minimal.
Executive: Dilute it with Executive Order. Trump entered this fray during his 2016 presidential campaign by call for the full repeal of the amendment. At the National Prayer Breakfast, Trump vowed to "totally destroy" the Johnson Amendment to curry favor with the Christian Right. and as president, announced through his Press Secretary that he was "committed to get rid of the Johnson Amendment" and "allowing our representatives of faith to speak freely and without retribution".
Conclusion
The vitriol that has fueled U.S. culture wars for so long is now being exported, and some of our most ardent culture warriors are finding a far more receptive audience abroad. Although the term "Christian Right" is most commonly associated with politics in the United States, its perceived success by its proponents has inspired them to export this political movement to other Christian-majority nations with some very dire consequences.Some of the harshest intervention results have occurred in Africa.
Christian Right evangelists from the United States are influencing policymakers in Africa by speaking out against homosexuality and cheering on anti-gay legislation. Two such evangelists were sued by a Ugandan gay rights group for their role in promoting human rights violations against LGBT people. The two participated in an anti-gay conference, where speakers blamed homosexuals for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, among other abhorrent acts.
In another example, two representative from a hard-right Christian group from US politics supported antigay laws in Uganda in support of the so called Ugandan “kill the gays” bill. One of the representatives actually congratulated the Ugandan president for "leading his nation to repentance."
Interventions in Europe have largely focused on the wedge issue of abortion, but some in the Christian Right see the EU as an enemy to “traditional values” and the “natural family” because they are advancing the rights of women and LGBT people as reported such reports as Brexit Boosters: Why the Religious Right Hates the European Union.
Other Report have focus on comments from former Breitbart News Chairman and now advisor to Trump, Steve Bannon where he stated: “We believe — strongly — that there is a global tea party movement, ... You’re seeing a global reaction to centralized government, whether that government is in Beijing or that government is in Washington, D.C., or that government is in Brussels… On the social conservative side, we’re the voice of the anti-abortion movement, the voice of the traditional marriage movement.” The Rise Of Europe’s Religious Right
In Asia, the wedge issue of choice seems to be sexual morality with a particular emphasis on homosexuality described in The politics of sexual morality and evangelical activism in Hong Kong.
Beware the wedge issue incursions. They won't stop there.
No comments:
Post a Comment