Ron Streicher of Pasadena wrote in to the Los Angeles Times:

Religious leaders -- of any faith -- must come to understand that at any secular or governmental event (and especially one of so high a stature as the inauguration of a president) the imposition of any specific theology or deity name is inappropriate at best.

No, it isn’t inappropriate.  When you ask a Christian pastor to speak or deliver a prayer, this is to be expected.  When the President professes to be a Christian, this is entirely appropriate.  This has precedence going back for hundreds of years in this country.

The United States is not a theocracy, no matter how much the Christian right would have it otherwise.

I'd like to see documentation of a major representative of the "Christian right" calling on us to become a theocracy instead of adhering to the Constitution.  I have read and heard a lot of from "religious right" speakers and authors, and they have strongly supported the Constitution.

Although this blog is primarily political in nature, I make no secrets about being a Christian, and occasionally write about religion and issues involving faith.  If you are a consistent thinker who acts on reason, then it makes sense that your worldview will inform your political philosophy and positions.  How can what one believes about morality, judgment, authority, accountability, our origins, our destiny, our obligations, and human nature not influence their politics?

I am, perhaps, too libertarian to be classified with the Religious Right, but I am sympathetic to the Religious Right in many areas, and I’ve written much about that movement here.

Here are some previous entries that are relevant:

God is Not a Cosmic Bellhop

Hit and Run Bible Mockers

When Bill Maher is Unintentionally Laughable

Is Jesus a Republican?

Exposing the Religious Right

What Motivates the Religious Right?

The Religious Right is a Reaction

The Religious Right on Church and State

Religious Right on Marriage

The Religious Right: Sex is For Marriage

The Religious Right on Homosexual Behavior

The Religious Right on Abortion

The Religious Right on Euthanasia, Stem Cells, and Life

This appears to be yet another attempt to keep people like me from sticking up for ourselves.  Rebecca Trounson, Los Angeles Times staff writer, reports.

In an often strongly worded statement released this week, more than 70 pastors, scholars and business leaders said faith and politics have become too closely intertwined and that evangelicals err when they use their religious beliefs for political purposes.

But aren’t these people doing exactly that?

If you take your religion seriously, and your religion makes claims about reality, and you are consistent in your worldview, how would be possible to avoid using your religious beliefs for political purposes?

I believe people are sinners, no matter how educated.  That’s how I know we’ll always need the military, law enforcement, and prisons no matter how much money we spend on education.

I believe people are created in the image of God, and so each person has inherent worth and inalienable rights, and thus do not believe the government is justified in trampling on those rights and is supposed to protect those rights.

But Christians from both ends of the political spectrum have made the mistake of politicizing their faith, the group declares in the document, called “An Evangelical Manifesto.”

Is this the one that doesn’t even mention the resurrection of Christ?  That’s like having a U.S. history textbook that doesn’t even mention the American Revolution, or the Constitution.

Huffman and other organizers said the document's release was not timed to the U.S. presidential contest. But he said he hoped one result would be to persuade some of the more outspoken evangelical voices to tone down their political rhetoric.

Why?  We live in a participatory society, where people have their right to speak out protected.  We have a democratic representative republic.  It behooves us to speak out and stand up for our convictions, or risk being ruled only by those who do not share our convictions and will even try to infringe on our religious practice.  The previous generation was asleep at the wheel, and we got Roe v. Wade and other disasters.

Now, I get that the GOP is not a Christian organization.  It is a political party that exists to get associated individuals elected and to keep them in political office.  I get that, as a follower of Christ, my focus needs to be first and foremost on my relationship with Him.  But that doesn’t preclude me from applying my convictions, informed by my faith, to my political involvements, the same as I apply it to my personal relationships, finances, and so forth.

We should be trying to get more evangelicals more involved in politics.  Instead of apologizing for the perceptions others have of us, whe should be helping our fellow followers of Christ become more media savvy and better and getting our messages across to other people.

Does a third party candidate make sense for politically conservative Christians?

Christian conservatives have certain well-known priorities:

Right to Life issues
Protecting marriage from counterfeiting
Religious freedom
Judicial restraint
School choice
Parental authority over minor children

There are plenty of others, but you get the idea.

But what should be the highest priority?

The highest priority should be defending the U.S., because without a strong defense of our country, none of the other debates matter.  That strong defense must include a well-funded, well equipped, motivated, and effectively deployed military; sophisticated intelligence operations; and border control and immigration enforcement.  Terrorists and rogue nations seek to bring us down, and we must defend ourselves from their attacks and disrupt their plans.

The GOP frontrunners in the Presidential campaign may not have stellar positions or track records on all of the Religious Right’s priorities, and a couple have other characteristics that make evangelical Christians queasy (multiple divorces and family strife, active membership in an organizational and theological cult with really good PR and tireless apologists), but what is their position on national defense and homeland security?  Can the person be an effective leader?

Yes, ideally, we’d like a candidate who shares our major political stances and our religion and has demonstrated our moral ideals.  However, we’re not voting for our lead pastor or theologian.  We are voting for President of the United States of America.

A major conservative third party candidacy would likely result in the election of a Democrat.  While it might be tempting to “send the GOP a message”, for at least four years we’d have Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Gore, or someone similar as Commander-In-Chief, appointing judges (including Supreme Court justices), issuing executive orders, and signing or vetoing bills.

We have an entrenched two-party system and we need to work with that, or we’ll lose.  I’d rather have McCain, Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson than Edwards, Clinton, Obama or Gore.  Many doubters cite Giuliani and Romney’s less-than-conservative stances, especially from their terms as New York Mayor and Massachusetts Governor, respectively, but c’mon… those are Leftist constituencies, and they had to work with where they were.

Don’t like our top GOP choices?  Then start working now for the 2012 and 2016 cycles to lift up viable, experienced political leaders who are upstanding citizens and evangelical Christians.  We’re more likely to have success in doing that inside the GOP, but if anyone wants to try in the Democrat Party, which is in the grip of the labor (especially public school teachers) unions, trial lawyers, abortionists, radical homosexual Left activists, and pornographers – well, go ahead and try.

Until then, our more effective move will be working within the GOP and getting the GOP candidate elected.  A GOP President is more likely to listen to our pleas than one of the likely Democrats.  Most importantly, however – a GOP President is likely to be more effective at aggressively defending the U.S.  That should be our priority.

Geoff Boucher of the Los Angeles Times brings us a review on "Hollywood Father/Daughter Purity Ball", which is apparently presented in a Mexican restaurant in West Hollywood.  I could probably stop there and you’d already know enough, since West Hollywood is well known as a homosexual activist headquarters.

He initially describes the show this way:

a feisty satire of the purity ball movement that has become a staple of evangelical communities in Bible Belt states.

He then goes on to explain:

A purity ball, for the uninitiated, is a formal dance where young girls (usually teens and pre-teens but sometimes as young as 6) and their fathers come as a couple and each takes a pledge to protect the daughter's virginity until her wedding night. The dads often present their gown-wearing "date" with a ring to symbolize the commitment and then everyone dines on white cake.

So far, so good.

Purity balls began nine years ago in Colorado Springs, Colo., and supporters praise them as lovely galas that strengthen the bond between fathers and daughters and allow the youngsters to dress up like a ballroom princess in a wholesome setting laced with Christian imagery. But there's a considerable number of outsiders who reflexively find the whole concept more than a little unsettling; the plunging necklines, slow dances and constant talk of protecting "flowers" drifts a bit too close to those child beauty pageants that another Colorado resident, JonBenet Ramsey, once competed in.

It’s quite a stretch to link purity balls to child beauty pageants.  The latter often sexualize children, while the former aims to conserve and protect their innocence.  Plunging necklines?  Have they seen the way girls are dressing?  I guess a rave, freakdancing, or those spoiled-brat MTV Sweet 16 parties would be better?

He goes on to further describe the show as…

a bawdy spoof from a creative team that includes writer-producer Maggie Rowe, producer Laura Summer and Emmy-winning writer Jim Vallely ("Arrested Development"). Rowe has experience in tweaking born-again themes: "The Hollywood Father/Daughter Purity Ball" gets its inspiration from Christian-minded purity balls.

In 2004, she was behind "Hollywood Hell House," which presented a tongue-in-cheek adaptation of the "Hell House" script used for regional Christian haunted houses. Those real Hell Houses, an entrenched Halloween tradition in the Heartland, show gory images of the consequences of homosexuality, drug use and premarital sex.

The Hell Houses date to the early 1970s, but in recent history one of the most influential sponsors of the scare-them-straight events has been Pastor Keenan Roberts of (you guessed it) Colorado. As Rowe put it: "What is it with that state? When did it get so creepy?"

So it is “creepy” to present traditional values in a way that attempts to be relevant and entertaining?  I think it is creepy to sexualize children.

(The show got another last-minute curve ball when Bill Maher, scheduled to be the faux pastor for the show, backed out for personal reasons; Rowe said he is expected to be on stage Saturday.)

Ah yes- Bill Maher, the man who contributes so much to society.

The program centered on the fictitious Pilsner family, a screeching brood from Aurora, Ill., with three daughters and a son of questionable sexual orientation who, the audience is told, is fresh from Bangkok, where he does missionary work with local boys.

Ha ha- it is so funny when Christian parents have a child who is sexually confused.  Yes, that joke is just so original, isn’t it?  And let’s knock missionary work while we’re at it, as if there aren’t people all over the world right now sacrificing to help people who were strangers to them and living on the other side of the planet.

Also on stage was Fishes With Loaves, billed as an Orange County Christian folky improv group (think Will Ferrell's acoustic shticks on "Saturday Night Live") and the slightly lascivious Pastor Larry, portrayed by comedian Larry Miller, who riffed on the most current political sex scandal. "There's no toe-tappers here," he bellowed, "but we all take a mighty wide-sized stance."

I’m disappointed, Mr. Miller.  And here I wanted to run out and buy your book.

Rowe takes personal glee in lampooning the grass-roots theater of fundamentalist Christians.

Such theater can be ripe for lampooning – that I do not deny.  But so can mainstream hedonist theater.  I wonder if people really know what they are talking about, though, when they throw around the term “fundamentalist”?  Or does it simply mean to them “Someone who knows what they believe and why, and that I disagree with.”?

She said the "insidious" message beneath the surface of the purity ball scene is that young girls are "property," first to their fathers, then husbands, and always to God.

So, being slutty and fornicating somehow proves you aren’t property?  And I dare say that we - male and female - do belong to God.  He made us.  He will judge us.  He also created sex.  God certainly delegates to parents the task of protecting their children.  I think the real message they find insidious here is that sex is for marriage.  They don’t want to live by that standard, so they trash anyone who lives by that standard or suggests living by it.

"Marriage is a property transfer, and these events also completely festish-ize these little girls."

Property transfer – interesting words when it comes to marriage.  I’m assuming Rowe has never and will never accept alimony or anything that her husband earned?  Marriages without specific prenuptial agreements certainly are property transfers.  And what would you call a date where a woman fornicates with a man because she thinks he has money and/or he has spent a lot of money on her?  Isn’t that her conducting a “property transfer”?  As for “fetish-izing” the girls – the events extol the value of their bodies and hearts and the girls as people.  While the Godless hedonists cheapen and devalue sex, the true Christian highly values sexuality.

It isn’t hard to find criticism of purity balls from feministas, hedonists, sluts, players, cads, Leftists, and anyone who hates the notion that sex is for marriage.  They claim, as noted above, that girls are being treated as property.  They also say that these sorts of things are stifling the sexuality of these girls and making them feel shame if they don’t live by the standard of saving sex for marriage.  Also- what about girls who have already been raped?  And finally, they say that there are incestuous undertones to these events.

I’ve already dealt with the “property” criticism.  As for “stifling” – it is healthier to have boundaries than to tell children to go ahead and indulge their hormones and peer pressures with decisions that may have consequences for the rest of their lives.  Shame?  Shame is a good thing.  We should not drop our morals in order to protect someone’s feelings.  Rather, someone should be moral if they want to avoid shame.  As for rape- purity is more a matter of the heart than a physical thing.  A girl who has been raped is not in the least bit devalued by the Christian standard.  She is a victim of evil, not someone who has given herself away to someone else in fornication.  But just because there is the reality of the evil of rape does not mean we should refrain from celebrating and encouraging purity.

Their assertion that the purity balls have an incestuous overtone is especially insulting, given that it is their agenda that is more likely to lead to incest or incestuous thoughts:

-If it feels good, do it.
-What happens between consenting adults their own business.
-Sexualization of children.
-Immodesty
-Porn (How likely is it that a father whose daughter has appeared in pornographic materials may inadvertently stumble across that material?  Likely, if he has the same loose morals.)
-Encouraging sexual “experimentation”
-Being “nonjudgmental”
-Casual fornication, shacking up, divorce, remarriage, blended families, adultery, “reproductive technologies” that result in anonymous parentage
-Easy access to abortion on demand (thereby covering up incest).
-Sending underage girls to have abortions and right back into abusive households by fighting parental notification laws on the grounds that perhaps her father impregnated her in the first place.  Since the girl can get an abortion without telling any authority that a family member impregnated her, no authority will know she needs to be removed from the home.  Back she’ll go into that home!

But I have to wonder- do these people also oppose father-daughter dances at wedding receptions, or fathers escorting their daughters down the aisle at weddings?  Many of these women who bash the traditional belief that sex is for marriage still want the tradition of the engagement ring, the bridal showers, the wedding ceremony complete with white dress, and the honeymoon.  Yes, they still want those traditions, but they don’t want the values and morals that gave meaning to them.  They just want parties where they are the center of attention, gifts, vacations, and jewelry, because they are shallow, hedonistic, and materialistic.

Perhaps the critics had weak, absent, abusive neglectful, or otherwise bad fathers (picked by their mothers, I’d like them to remember) and thus can’t understand the value of a father’s participation in this aspect of raising daughters.  Surely, this will help more of the girls save sex for marriage.  I think it is better that more people strive to maintain the standard of saving sex for marriage as opposed to encouraging behavior that leads to a long trail of broken hearts, emotional baggage and dysfunction, STDs, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, abortions, children living without one of their parents, and so forth.

Purity balls can give girls many positive messages, such as that they are valuable children of God whose bodies, hearts, and sexuality are too important to give away and expose casually; they are of worth to men without fornicating with them; they are more than just sex objects; that their fathers will actively seek to protect them from those who would prey on them, pressure them, and take advantage of them instead of being indifferent of encouraging them to indulge their hormones and give in to peer pressure.  Underage girls are still learning to manage their impulses and feelings; their brains are still maturing.  They need their parents to guide them and guard them in many ways, including physically – including making sure they get enough sleep, eat right, maintain healthy hygiene, get proper medical care, and yes, have a healthy moral attitude towards sexuality.

Look, I don’t think fornication is the end of the world.  I actually think it is far worse for someone to marry the wrong person or marry too young out of horniness than it is too fornicate.  But those aren’t the only two options, and I do think it is best to save sex for marriage, and I think that purity balls, if done right, are a positive thing.  If you don’t want to to save sex for marriage, and you don’t want to promote the idea that saving sex for marriage is the ideal, you certainly have that freedom.  You also have freedom of speech, but why mock or work to undermine those who encourage their own children to save sex for marriage?  It doesn’t harm you if they do, and you don’t gain if they don’t – unless you are trying to fornicate with them or sell them abortions or you otherwise profit from fornication.  Perhaps you protest just a little too much.  Maybe, deep down, you understand that saving sex for marriage is the ideal, and you hate it that you can see that truth, even if you don’t live by it.

 

Previously, I wrote about what makes someone an authentic Christian, as there are many people who identify themselves – or are identified by others – as Christians, but in the strict theological sense, they aren’t.

Now on to the question: “Is Jesus a Republican?”

My short answer is “no”.

But he certainly isn’t a Democrat, either.

The GOP is a U.S. political party, and as such, is a man-made organization, the main purpose of which is to get members elected and appointed to government offices.  It is a flawed organization founded and comprised of flawed people.

I do believe, though, that conservatism can be consistent with Christian principles, and in fact I maintain that my own conservatism is consistent with my Christian worldview.  And, in the U.S., it is the GOP that is a home to the conservative movement and is one of the two dominant, effective political parties, hence my support for the GOP.

In an ideal situation, the perfect form of government is a benevolent dictatorship - an absolute monarchy, actually – with the monarch being eternal, unchanging, unequaled, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, holy, loving, merciful, and just.  (That’s God, to those of you who are slow on the uptake.)  But since He has given us the freedom to govern ourselves for now, and we are a mix of unrepentant sinners and repentant-but-still-unperfected sinners, I do not believe there is a better governmental system than the brilliant one devised by our mostly Christian-influenced founders – our union of states in a capitalist, constitutional, democratic, representative, republic with separation of powers and checks and balances.

It is that system that recognizes that people will generally look out for their own self-interests and in doing so will cooperate where mutually beneficial, and will also engage voluntarily in private charity.  It is that system that recognizes that since sin has marred each of us, none of us should have too much power.  It is that system that recognizes that people will do wrong, and some of those wrongs demand a collective response from the people as a whole.  So, it is a system that understands that true nature of people.

This is a system worth conserving.  Hence - conservatism.

Conservatism promotes respect for human life; defending and esteeming marriage; respect for authority; personal freedom, responsibility and accountability; punishment and restitution for wrongs; private charity; and encourages acknowledging God in all areas of life.  These are all very much part of what Jesus taught and affirmed.

Leftists, including some Democrats, cite God as Creator and Jesus’ acceptance of prostitutes and others marginalized by society during his earthly ministry, His message of forgiveness, His “cast the first stone” and “take the plank out of your own eye” statements, His commands to take care of the needy, His “turn the other cheek” statement, and His willingness to be beaten and crucified as examples of why Republicans and conservatives are wrong and why Christians should support Democrats in their efforts to:

-expand government social spending (including allowing illegal aliens to come here, stay here, and receive such spending)
-socialize health care
-implement “environmental protection” legislation
-promote pacifism
-promote licentiousness, especially in sexual behavior

Such applications take Jesus’ words and actions out of context and twist His words.

It is bizarre to me that people who so stridently promote and defend philosophical naturalism (claiming that we and everything else in the universe are the products of nothing more than natural processes alone) appeal to our belief in a Creator to promote their “environmental protection” agenda.  Many of these people are the same people that see nothing wrong with dismembering babies in the womb.  Many of the same people who promote government-funded (meaning taxpayer-funded) health care for seniors by appealing to our compassion would just as soon put our seniors to death, claiming it is for dignity and pain-relief, but in actuality because the seniors would become an expensive inconvenience.

Yes, Jesus accepted and forgave people who admitted and repented of their sins.  You can’t repent of sins if you don’t recognize them as sins in the first place.  The phrase “Go and sin no more” comes to mind.  He saved their souls but did not necessarily protect them from the earthly consequences of their sins.  The repentant thief on the cross comes to mind – Jesus told him “Today, you will be with me in Paradise,” indicating he was forgiven, but Jesus didn’t use His power to remove the man from the cross and stave off death.  And yes, people should take the plank out of their own eye before trying to remove the speck in someone else’s eye, and if you have repented of your sins and turned to Jesus, then the plank has been removed.

He’ll judge the world in the future, but Jesus certainly wasn’t “nonjudgmental” during His earthly ministry.  According to the written accounts of His teachings, He talked a lot about Hell and had some choice words in public for certain people, and don’t forget what He did to the money changers.

Jesus ordered His followers to take care of the poor, not the government.  He didn't advocate stealing from the rich to "care for the poor".  He told a rich man to sell everything he had and give it to the poor himself, not to sell all he had and give it to Rome for redistribution.  

Jesus did not teach pacifism, either.  As Greg Koukl points out, “turning the other cheek” likely refers to dealing with insults.  Jesus sent His disciples out with swords.  I’d agree that Jesus would be against using force unjustly, but not all use of force is unjust.

(Oh - and despite what PETA would say, Jesus was not a vegetarian, either.)

I’d like to note that nowhere does Jesus command us to spread Christianity by force.  He commanded us to make disciples, true, but everything about His earthly ministry teaches us to make disciples by preaching the Gospel through our words and living the Gospel in our actions.  Promote clean living.  Care for those in need, including telling them when, where, and how their sins are causing their problems (IF their own sins are causing those particular problems).

So, while I wouldn’t say that Jesus is a Republican, I would say that being a Republican is entirely compatible with being a Christian.  Being a Christian is much more than just being involved in politics, however.  It also includes living a moral life and giving of your time, talent, and treasure to those who need it.  We can’t insist that the government get out of social spending and then not pick up th slack ourselves by tending to the legitimate needs of others.  That is all part of having a relationship with Christ as your Lord and Savior.

As I’ve said already, I didn’t agree with everything Jerry Falwell said or did, but I do think he did a lot of good in a lot of ways.  He opposed the efforts to tear down morality, marriage, the family, and Christian participation in politics and public discourse.

Notice how the (mostly anonymous) Leftist commenters have been shrilly and cruelly bashing Falwell and classlessly celebrating his death, accusing him of being in a Hell in which they, ironically, don’t believe.  Many of these same people want to “understand” and sympathize with the jihadists, and don’t want us saying anything mean about terrorists.  Yes, these paragons of “tolerance” condemn Falwell, and cite his occasional sensationalistic statements and some of his left-field positions as why.

But we know the real reason the hate him.  Most of all, they hated him because he was a leader in waking up the normal, average American to the radical extremism being insidiously, incrementally forced upon them by a tiny minority of influential fringe activists.  He *gasp* reminded the faithful that political participation was also their right, just like any other citizen’s, and that if they were going to protect their rights, our heritage, our countries, and our families, they needed to stop letting the extreme Leftist activists advance their agenda without facing a challenge.  The fringe Leftists demanded that Falwell sit down and shut up, and when he didn’t, they were even more enraged that someone dared to defy their dictatorial commands.

These are malignant narcissistic hedonists who want “someone else” to be forced to take care of their every need, want, whim, and desire and solve even the problems they brought upon themselves from their ongoing immorality, and don’t like to be asked to voluntarily show some discipline, restraint, or sacrifice.  They want to stick their head in the sand…for two reasons.  One I can’t write without being obscene, and the other reason is because they think that will stop the Islamofascists from attacking us.  Falwell recognized the threat of Islamofascism, thereby harshing their buzz.  They make vicious personal attacks against someone because that person expressed his disagreement that some voluntary behavior of theirs is healthy or right and pointed out that Scriptures advise not to engage in them - as if Falwell kidnapped them and preached to them while they were chained to his wall.

They hate anyone declaring that sex is for marriage and that killing babies is wrong.

I heard/read the comments from three people who interacted with Falwell - an openly gay man, a pornographer, and a practicing Jew (all people who have reason to hate Falwell, according to the bashers) as they talked about the positive impacts he had and declared that they found him to be the real deal, sincere, and kind.  Yet people who didn’t know him want us to believe he was a fraud and a hypocrite.

Falwell wasn’t perfect.  He had flaws.  He committed sins.  One of the essentials of being a true Christian is admitting that.  Falwell apparently did, and strove to follow God.  I find that superior to trying to deny that sin is wrong and making personal attacks against anyone who doesn’t go along with such equivocation.

The only way these bashers think they can feel better about themselves is to tear everyone else down, tear down our institutions in favor of giving more power to the state, and try to erase our heritage.  The only way they can get that done is if everyone stands by and lets them.  Falwell opposed them, and that continues to drive them up the wall.

There are also a few people who are decisively bashing and pronouncing judgment on Falwell based on their churchianity.  These are the kind of unforgiving, prejudging people who obsess over minor teachings and practices and think every other person in the world aside from themselves is going to Hell.  No influential, successful church leader is acceptable to them, except perhaps the one obscure preacher/author from whom they are getting their ideas.

There are plenty of people who disagreed with some or much of what Falwell said or did, but they aren't so damaged as to obsess over him and celebrate his death.

Move on.  The man is dead.  If he was truly a follower of Christ, then he’s safe with Him now.

Jerry Falwell passed away today, which you probably knew already.  I just happen to be posting my last installment of my series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

Jerry Falwell was considered my most, especially the news media, to be one of the main leaders of the Religious Right.  However, many in the RR did not agree with all of his positions, his well-known controversial quotes, or how he presented the RR’s messages.  I am in that latter category.  I do believe that he did some good work in opposing the efforts to tear down morality, marriage, the family, and Christian participation in politics and public discourse.  As such, hypersensitive and highly networked and organized activist groups whose agenda was hampered by Falwell were all too eager to seize on his mistakes and portray him as hateful and ignorant.  I also believe that if he was truly a follower of Christ (only God knows for sure), then his sins were forgiven and he is safely with Him now.

Below, I wrap by covering some of the smaller issues the RR has been involved with and then with a general conclusion.

Wrapping Up on the Religious Right

The Religious Right and Public Funding of the Arts
While I haven’t seen the RR object to art in general being purchased/commissioned for public property (sculptures, mosaics, murals, painting, etc. in parks, government buildings, government-owned galleries/museums, etc.), the RR does object to public funds or properties being used to commission or display works that are “obscene”, “indecent”, pornographic, or offensive, particularly towards American patriotism or the Judeo-Christian traditions on which the RR maintains the nation was founded and built.

Where the line should be drawn appears to be related to public opinion - i.e., if a majority of the (local) public finds it offensive or can understand that it could be offensive, public resources shouldn’t be supporting it.

This another area where libertarians can find some common ground with the RR, in that libertarians tend to be against public resources supporting art in general.  Members of the RR question why their tax money should pay for works that they find personally offensive and disrespectful to America as a whole.

Family-Friendly Policies
The RR maintains that if business/employment, tax, law, and government policies and programs in general are going to favor any group, they should favor marriage and parenting, encouraging child rearing in marriage.  For example, as long as there is an income tax with deductions, the deductions should favor those who are raising children, especially in marriage.  Many in the RR believe that the state has an interest to favor childrearing by a husband and wife, as the children are the future soldiers, voters, taxpayers, investors, employees, etc.

Also, the RR believes that unless children are actually being abused or neglected, parenting is a family issue, not something in which the state or even “the village” should interfere.  The state and the village should assist, by maintaining a society where parental authority and family sovereignty is respected and the culture protects the innocence of children, but should in no way attempt to usurp, subvert, or replace parental authority, or side with children in disputes between children and parents.

Boy Scouts of America
The RR tends to support the Boy Scouts of America regarding their freedom of association, including excluding females and professing/practicing homosexuals and atheists.  

Among the reasons:

Boy and girls are different, and each sex should have some of their own groups for experiencing bonding and character-building without the other sex interfering.

Part of the BSA culture is a belief in God, which informs some of the morals, motivations, perspectives, respect for authority and order, and other aspects of the BSA.

Homosexual male scout leaders are not seen as a good idea because leaders take groups of boys camping or into home meetings.  For the same reason heterosexual adult males are not encouraged to do the same with a group of girls, homosexual males are not seen as the ideal people for such activities.

There are alternative scouting groups, and joining the BSA is voluntary.

The RR sees the BSA as having a positive impact on individuals and society.

The RR and Environmentalism
As the RR maintains that God is the Creator and that we are made in God’s image, the individuals in the RR may see the importance of sound environmental conservation policies in order to respect God’s creation and provide for any future generations.  What the RR does not support is nature worship or pagan or New Age beliefs, practices, or rituals being injected into public celebrations or public school curricula under the guise of environmentalism.  The RR certainly does not believe in viewing human life as a threat that needs to be managed or reduced, or favoring the “rights” of plants and animals over human needs.

In Conclusion: Wrapping Up on the Religious Right

Perhaps you are a Republican, even a conservative, who has been wary of RR.  I hope my postings have given you a better understanding of the RR, if they haven’t eased your concerns.

If you believe...
In God and practice a traditional religion such as some form of Judaism or Christianity
That sex is best reserved for marriage
That marriage is between a man and a woman
That it is best for children be born and raised in marriage
That abortion is wrong
That Christians, like anyone else, should be allowed to vote and to express their faith in public even if they are government officials
That the U.S. and our Constitution are worth defending
...then you have a lot in common with the Religious Right.

The RR tends to see political involvement as a right and obligation as citizens, and as a religiously valid expression of their faith and a legitimate way to protect their interests and influence society.  Due to the RR’s valuation of the natural family, traditional morality, and each individual human being’s life, it is best known for its organized opposition to the political agendas and social trends that have resulted in increased abortions, euthanasia, children being born or raised out of wedlock, an equating of sexual relations outside of wedlock to marital lovemaking, and the equating of unions missing one of the sexes or a marriage commitment (via license and public declaration) to marriage.

While the highest priorities of the RR may be different from other factions of the Republican Party or conservative movement, it can find enough common ground with libertarian Republicans and “Wall Street Journal” Republicans to continue to band together in a political alliance to oppose the empowerment of Leftists who seek to grow international government and the state in ways that weaken families and businesses, and forcibly diminish Western culture.

The RR doesn’t want big government interfering with their religious expression or families.  The WSJ Republicans don’t want big government interfering in business.  The libertarians don’t want big government at all.  This is why they must work together to prevent the Democrat party, which puts Leftists in power, from gaining the Presidency and retaining Congress.  This is why they must work together at the state level, too.  This is also why they must work to keep elected Republicans from drifting leftward.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

I discussed the RR's positions on Defense here.

The Religious Right on Foreign Policy

The Religious Right is mostly concerned with domestic issues and does not, as a group, tend to embrace an integrated umbrella philosophy on foreign policy (such as isolationism, or the Bush Doctrine, etc.).  In this post, I’ll address some individual foreign policy subjects with which the RR tends to get involved.

Israel - Some in the RR link present-day Israel to Biblical Israel, and many of these people see Israel as special and its return as a political nation as something foretold in Biblical prophecy.  These people believe there is a supernatural protection for Israel, and that countries support or attack Israel to their own blessing or peril, respectively.  This was expressed in the wildly popular Left Behind fiction series.  However, there are conservative Christians who believe that all followers of Christ are the “true Israel” today, and that modern-day Israel has no connection to the Biblical Israel, other than geography, and maybe some ethnicity.  This is an internal split in orthodox (lower case “o”) Christianity.  (There are a minority of Jews who think modern-day Israel is a fake Israel - some of them showed up at Iran’s Holocaust denial event).  However, even many Christians who do not believe modern-day Israel should be regarded as Biblical Israel may still support Israel on purely political grounds.  Most in the RR see the country as the best U.S. ally in the region, and even the world.

Religious Freedom & Other Human Rights, Sharia Law, and China - The RR opposes any government that prevents religious freedom and persecutes Christians, and violates human rights such as in Muslim countries with Sharia law and in China.  China is seen as violating many human rights and promoting abortion.  Consequently, the RR has opposed some diplomatic relations with China, and often accuses China of aiding terrorism and governments hostile to U.S. interests.

Global Government – The RR sees the United Nations and related agencies as mostly being enemies of the U.S. and Americans, and Israel, and as corruption-riddled.  Since the RR holds the U.S. Constitution, representative government, national sovereignty, property rights, and family sovereignty dear, it opposes global governments and international agreements that in any way appear to infringe on those things, or transfer tax money to be used on projects and programs not directly controlled by the U.S.  They do not want U.S. judges citing the decisions of foreign judges, or U.S. citizens to face prosecution in other countries or by the laws of other countries for actions undertaken in the U.S. or on behalf of the U.S.

Those in the RR that expect the Antichrist to show up any day now see such agreements and agencies as likely facilitating his consolidation of power.

A minority within the RR goes further, into territory that others in the RR and society in general think is misguided or paranoid.  The extremists assert that there is a conspiracy by the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, directed by the legendary Illuminati from their black helicopter-facilitated visits to things like the Bohemian Grove, to bring about a nefarious “New World Order” as a means to enslave Americans and all others who aren’t part of the extreme elite.  They see this as manifesting in a lack of border enforcement, an attack on the middle class, NATO, the European Union and a similarly structured North American Union, and agreements such as NAFTA and GATT.

Even without all of that, however, the RR in general isn’t fond of the U.N. or the U.S. being subjected to any international government.  Plus, there are plenty of people outside of the RR who also buy into the “illuminati-conspiracy-to-destroy-America” thinking, and most of the RR might see very open, public trends towards world government or diminished U.S. strength, but not an actual conspiracy.

The bottom line on the RR and foreign policy is that the RR wants to protect the U.S., protect families, and spread religious freedom.  There isn’t unity on how to do these things.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right on Defense, Law Enforcement, Capital Punishment, & Gun Ownership

The RR believes that we are obligated to defend ourselves from attack, with force if necessary.  A husband is obligated to defend his wife and kids (and to defend himself so that he can continue to protect them).  Collectively, we are obligated to protect ourselves through law enforcement and militarily force.  Therefore, the RR tends to respect and support a strong military (including most military actions/war efforts) and law enforcement personnel.

Some in the RR have expressed disagreements with some approved actions by Federal law enforcement agencies, however.  Examples of this include the “Waco” and “Ruby Ridge” incidents.  The RR is not united in these opinions.

Indeed, many in the RR are wary of the Federal government having too much power and becoming oppressive, and so promote gun ownership, perceiving that an armed populace is less likely to be oppressed.

Mostly, however, the RR support for gun ownership has to do with the Second Amendment, self-defense, and family defense from criminals.  Most people in the RR do not have a moral problem with hunting, either, even if they do not do it themselves.

Perhaps one of the areas where the RR is least unified is capital punishment.  Churches such as the Roman Catholic Church are officially against it, others join in on “pro-life” grounds, and others in the RR may agree with capital punishment in principle, but think our government may be too flawed or corrupted to be trusted with properly implementing capital punishment.  Capital punishment supporters in the RR do not see it as being in conflict with their pro-life convictions, because they maintain the criminal’s actions warrant the punishment and that executing those criminals protects innocents from further threat from those criminals.

The underlying principles the RR employs in this area is that it is okay to use force to defend your life, the lives of other innocents, your country, and law & order.

 I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The RR on the Church/State Divide and Patriotism

From the Traditional Values Coalition website:

We are advocates of religious freedom. We believe the First Amendment to our Constitution gives all of us the right to freely exercise our religious faith and that religious faith is the cornerstone of freedom in this nation. Our Founding Fathers supported religion, purchased Bibles, established congressional chaplains, and sent missionaries to witness to the Indians. They enacted the First Amendment to protect religious freedom, not to stifle it. We are opposed to any movement in this country that will strip away our constitutional rights to freedom of religion, speech, and association.

You’ve probably heard the RR referred to as “theocrats” and “theocons” akin to the Taliban, and that the RR is pushing dominionism and/or reconstructionism, seeking to forcibly institute a conservative form of Christianity as the official state religion and to pass all sorts of laws turning those outside of their inner circle into second class citizens and criminals.

I have not seen this to be typical of the RR.  I have not seen any significant RR organization advocate such ideas.  There are no doubt small, unorganized smatterings of those sorts mixed in with the RR crowd, but they are not normative.  They are considered the fringe by most of the RR and not taken very seriously.  There is a very simple test to see if someone could possibly believe in coercive dominionism or reconstructionism.  Do they talk about being on the lookout for “the Antichrist” and a “rapture” of Christians being imminent?  If so, those people are expecting the world to get worse and the government to fall under the control of their opponent any day now, and that certainly doesn’t line up with a belief that the whole country will be truly Christianized through their efforts.  There are other Christians that believe the whole world will be Christianized - voluntarily.

Either way, the RR is not seeking to eliminate the government/church divide.  Even dominionists foresee a voluntary adoption of active Christianity by the masses - thereby ushering in paradise on Earth.

Ironically, it is liberals who seek to force “Christian charity” and “social justice” via the government – social programs, welfare, living wage laws, taxation policies, outlawing “hate”, etc.

When the RR refers to the U.S. as a “Christian nation”, they are referencing the founding of then nation, the principles behind that founding, the traditions of the country, and the overwhelming professed religious designations with which the citizens self-identify.

The RR maintains that Christopher Columbus and later the original European colonists in the colonies that became the U.S. were Christians seeking to further Christendom, spread the Gospel, and live by Christian principles without being persecuted.  They point to the colonial governments, founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and things like the Northwest Ordinance to put the U.S. Constitution in such a context.

The U.S. Constitution, including most Amendments and especially the first ten, are wholeheartedly supported by the RR.  They support freedom of religion with the caveat that religious expression must fall within certain laws of our “Christian” nation.  For example, you can’t legally practice human sacrifice or prostitution (in most places), even if it is part of your religion.

The “Establishment Clause” in the Constitution is seen by the RR as a way to prevent the Federal government from making any particular denomination the official national religion or to interfere in churches (except to prosecute crime), with a mind to the situation in England with the Anglican Church. Based largely on history and earlier precedents, they do not agree that it mandates the removal of prayer, chaplains, or religious or theistic monuments, imagery, symbols, mottos, books, meetings, or language from government buildings, currency, the Pledge of Allegiance as recited in government proceedings, speeches, press conferences, or public discourse or events.

As such, the RR is against the removal of Ten Commandments monuments and crosses from public land and seals, and other ways of "secularizing" society.

Nor does the Establishment Clause, according to the RR, prevent tax money from being distributed to religious charities and social programs as long as tax money is going to any charities or social programs.  However, many RR organizations do not want to accept such funding, believing it will come with strings they do not want to accept.

The RR also tends to be very patriotic, with many of the people believing the U.S. is the greatest nation on earth and one with an exceptional responsibility.  Part of that manifests in wanting to “protect the flag”, and hence past support for an Amendment to ban flag burning.  Personally, I love this country and there have been some wonderful things done for humanity under our flag.  I think people who burn the flag are lowering themselves to the level of slime.  But I just can’t get all that passionate about spending resources on an attempt to pass an Amendment banning flag burning.  On the other hand, I can’t commit to thinking it should be protected free speech.  However, that is the current default.

You should note that Jehovah’s Witnesses and certain other morally conservative religious groups that might be perceived as part of the RR see the government, and all governments in the world, as part of a system that is inherently contrary to the will of God and believe that God (note - God, not them) will overthrow them all to establish His direct rule on Earth in the future, and because of this and related religious reasons, they will not serve in the military or pledge allegiance to the flag.  Mormons, on the contrary, obviously have nothing against voting, holding elected office, or serving in the military.  (Just for the record - I consider both of those groups to be pseudo-Christian cults that have a leadership that is misleading them.)

Speaking of the military, I will touch on the RR’s view of military defense as well as law enforcement, capital punishment, and gun ownership in my next post on the RR.

In conclusion for this post, I want to point out that the RR does not want to take away your freedom of religion, or force their religion on you.  The RR loves the U.S. and believes that the Constitution is largely inspired by - and thus compatible with – Biblical principles, so they do not want to do away with the Constitution.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right & Vice Laws

I covered the RR’s policies on prostitution and porn in earlier posts.  Much of the same thinking applies to their opposition to gambling, recreational drug use (including marijuana), and to a lesser extent, tobacco and alcohol.

Judging from their emphases and apparent priorities, the RR doesn’t care much about tobacco.  Tax money is already being spent in campaigns to discourage smoking, especially amount the youth.  The RR does put effort into opposing the legalization of recreational drug use and drug abuse, including marijuana, fearing that legalization will encourage the use of mind-altering substances and make it more difficult to encourage or force people to get help to stop using them.  Not only does the RR consider the drugs as destructive physically, but it also cites their mind/mood-altering properties as a danger, especially to adolescents and children, and as something that will encourage fornication and other risky/immoral behaviors.  The RR is against tolerance of underage drinking for the same reasons.

But then there’s gambling.

Hey, what problems has gambling ever caused?  Neighborhoods are always improved by gambling establishments, right?

Being a resident of Alta California, I remember when gambling propositions were on the ballot, and the “No” ads tried to scare the voters by saying that the propositions would turn California’s nice suburban neighborhoods into clones of miserable Las Vegas.  Oddly enough, the those ads were sponsored by the folks in Vegas, who apparently wanted to hog the “misery” all for themselves.  The “Yes” crowd – mainly recognized tribal groups who portrayed themselves as poverty-stricken folks who would lead all tribal people into a glorious self-sufficient future if there was a “Yes” vote, vehemently denied the comparison to Vegas.  Now, those same tribes have billboards that tout their casinos as “the shortcut to Vegas”.  And other tribes are saying they are being left out.

Oh, and the lottery in California was going to solve all of our education problems.  Only, it hasn’t.  Schools are still holding fundraisers, parents and teachers are still spending their own money directly on supplies, in addition to the many thousands of dollars per student that are being filtered through the state and Federal governments.

Anyway, the RR tries to prevent the spread of gambling because it is addictive and people will spend money on gambling they should be spending on other things, and with gambling often comes a host of other less desirable things.

I tend to feel that, even though I do not gamble, people should be free to gamble if they so choose, but then again I think those same people (and anybody else for that matter) shouldn’t expect taxpayers to support them when they’re destitute because they weren’t prudent and disciplined in their finances.

Getting back to the drugs…

Hey, everyone knows that marijuana, hallucinogens, heroin, cocaine, etc. expand your mind and never, ever have bad side effects or consequences, right?  None of us know anyone whose life has been diminished by the recreational use of these substances, right?  Teens have never done anything stupid while drunk, right?

The RR also opposes needle give-aways/exchanges, citing such programs as an encouragement to continue drug use, believing that such encouragement is a negative that outweighs the possible prevention of disease infection from consistently using clean needles.

I’m personally tempted to accept the libertarian position on drug laws.  My biggest reservations, though, are linked to the fact that we’re not living in a libertarian society, and so I could picture drugged-out people having a “right” to stay on the job even though they are a danger to others, and all sort of other complications, courtesy of folks like the ACLU.

Again, the RR cites laws as discouraging behavior - that even if the behavior remains widespread, it isn’t as prevalent as it would be if it were legal.  We invade privacy all of the time with restrictions and regulations, including laws governing how you raise children, doctor prescriptions, etc.  So, the RR maintains that laws restricting drug use are good and useful.

From the Traditional Values Coalition website:

We are opposed to the spread of legalized gambling in our society because this behavior frequently leads to addictions, the destruction of families, and the abuse of children. We oppose the legalization of addictive drugs and support strong law enforcement efforts against this societal scourge. We believe it is self-destructive and destructive of our culture, for individuals to become addicted to such behaviors as gambling, alcohol, smoking, pornography, or the use of drugs.

One thing I noticed about this statement - there are plenty of addictive drugs that are already legal, including alcohol.  But I think I get that the TVC was trying to say.  Speaking of alcohol - there are teetotalers and drinkers in the RR.  A disapproval of drunk driving, public drunkeness, and underage drinking are what unifies the RR in this area.

Anyway, the RR genuinely believes we'd all be better off if these vices were (remained) illegal or restricted.  It isn't that they don't want you to have fun - it is that the RR sees these bevaviors as destructive.  It is one of the main things that distinguishes conservative-leaning libertarians from the RR.  Those libertarians may agree that the vices are harmful, but they see the vice laws as doing more harm than good.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right & Public Schools

Many in the RR are pulling out of public schools, especially in blue-ish states.  However, as long as people in the RR are paying taxes and especially if they do have children or jobs in the public school system, they are going to speak up about various public school issues.

My belief is that there should be a separation of state and school.  There should be no Department of Education at the Federal level - as there wasn’t for most of our history.  People should make their own educational arrangements for their children, whether the schools have a religious affiliation or not, or home school.  This would eliminate these disputes as well as many, many others as public policy concerns.

However, this is never going to happen because too many people are invested in the status quo, including the politically powerful teachers unions (who have a self-interest in churning out government-dependent citizens).  As such, the RR, like any other segment of society, will continue to be involved in the public schools.  They have every right to be - just like anyone else.  So, let me briefly touch on a few of the hot-button issues the RR has with public schools.

Vouchers – Vouchers would encourage competition and competition encourages excellence and innovation.   It is a basic law of human nature.  Some object on the grounds it would give tax money to religious institutions in the instances where parents choose to send their children to those schools.  Somehow, it’s okay to these people to take the money from religious people to spend on public schools. Of course, this objection pretends that the public schools are religiously neutral, which is a fallacy.

Evolution in Science Curricula - The assertion that humans, life in general, and everything else in the universe and the universe itself came about without any supernatural involvement is a philosophical assertion, not something that is actually scientifically demonstrable.  The RR believes that God was involved, somehow, in at least some of it.  Some think God’s involvement can be determined from a straightforward reading of Genesis.  Others see Genesis as a poetic abstraction of what happened.  Still others look primarily to solid scientific knowledge rather than Genesis, and still conclude that even if evolution provides some of the details of the “how”, it still would have needed supernatural involvement.  All agree that God was involved.  Hence naturalism as a philosophy goes against their philosophy.  Evolution may go against their religion.

As such, when evolution is taught in science classes in a way that promotes naturalism, the RR usually wants some of the challenges to macroevolution to be presented and also wants some form of supernaturalism presented as an alternative to naturalism.  A common objection to this is “which brand of creationism should we teach?”  That objection is really a hoot, because it implies that there is only one unified universally accepted brand of macroevolutionary theory among naturalists, which is false.  Another objection that doesn’t stand up is that “intelligent design” is the same thing as Biblical creationism.  While some specific models of intelligent design may line up with Biblical creationism, it is possible to hold to intelligent design and still believe that evolution played a major role.  What intelligent design of any variation is incompatible with is complete philosophical naturalism.

So, especially in high school biology courses and earlier courses, why not stick mostly with what can be observed, tested, measured, and repeated today in living organisms and natural systems, instead of making dogmatic assertions about past events, especially since the details and the timelines keep changing?

The RR believes that promoting naturalism will encourage students to conclude that, if they are really nothing more than cosmic accidents, then there is really no such thing as right and wrong and that the future doesn’t matter, and what the RR sees as harmful behavior could result.

Sex Ed, “Health” Clinics, Condoms - As I discussed earlier, the RR believes that sex is for marriage and holds sex in the highest esteem, it believes that killing a human being through abortion at any point after conception is wrong, and that teens are already being overly stimulated, enticed, and sexualized.  Distributing birth control and contraception in school legitimizes the activity and creates an expectation.  Therefore, they oppose instruction and programs that will do anything less than promote abstinence until and fidelity in marriage as the ideal.

“GLBT” Issues - As I discussed earlier, the RR believes that homosexual behavior is wrong and that sex is for marriage, so they’re not going to support anything that insists same-sex couplings are equivalant to both-sex couplings and that homosexual behavior is normal, acceptable, and to be glorified.  “Transgendered” means refers to someone who either dresses inappropriately or is undergoing chemical treatments and surgery to change healthy, functional body parts and systems in order to pretend to be of the opposite sex.  These are things with which underage people should not be involved, according to the RR, and thus do not belong in public schools.

History - The RR is generally patriotic, considers the U.S. to be unique (in a positive way) in the world, believes in objective truth and right and wrong, and that Christianity and Judeo-Christian values haved played an important role in shaping the West and the U.S.  Therefore, they do not support multiculturalism, revisionism, postmodernism, relativism, nihilism, or minimizing the role of Christianity in Western culture and the rise of America in teaching history.

Prayer and Religious Freedom - I understand that objection to teacher-led communal sectarian prayer in the classroom, though for many years in the U.S., this was commonplace. For the RR, though, their faith is inseperably a part of every area of their life, and so they want the freedom to pray, read the Bible, meet, discuss religious matters, wear religious symbols and clothing with religious statements, use Biblical content in schoolwork where the student gets to choose a subject, and so forth.  Strangely, many people who would tell a student they can’t speak about Jesus in a class presentation would never, ever prevent someone from talking about Mohammed.  The RR students also don’t want to be exposed or pressured to participate in certain practices or symbolism that run counter to their faith - for example, things they consider pagan celebrations or traditions.

The Bible in Curricula - For many years, the Bible and Biblical themes, stories, and personalities were used in teaching.  While it is understandable that a government school shouldn’t officially present the Bible as the Word of God, removing the Bible from - and avoiding the Bible in - curricula does a disservice to students.  Even today, much of our society and culture (arts, history, morality, politics, laws, etc.) is influenced by the Bible.

There are a few of the issues that the RR engages in regarding public schools.  Again, I note that these disputes and many, many others could be avoided entirely with a separation of state and school.  The RR, and anyone else, should be able to keep their own money and send their kids to schools of their own choosing, without having to pay twice (once through taxes, again through tuition).  You shouldn’t be forced to fund schools that have policies with which you disagree and push philosophies contrary to your own, and you shouldn’t send your kids to them, either.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right: Hate Crime Legislation is Wrong

The RR is against “hate crime” legislation that adds additional penalties when the victims are apparently targeted because of some class, such as their race, sexual orientation, or affiliation with Islam, or that assigns legal culpability to “hate speech” for subsequent “hate crimes”.  They, like many others, maintain that it is wrong to single out certain crime victims for some sort of privileged class, or to legally judge someone’s thoughts or feelings.  Unwelcome violence against others or their property, unless in self defense, should not receive less punishment just because the perpetrator isn’t a bigot or the victim isn’t a member of a specially protected class.

Especially troubling to the RR is legislation that would go against the First Amendment (religious and speech freedoms) by attempting to suppress speech against homosexual behavior, pretending to be the other sex,  and Islam, especially since the RR bases some of their criticisms on teachings from the Bible.

When “hate crime” legislation is used to try to suppress conscientious opposition, the RR will not sit by silently.

Two recent columns on Tonwhall.com by LaShawn Barber and Chuck Colson illustrate some of the thinking of the RR on this issue.

However, Tammy Bruce, a proud lesbian, who is certainly not a member of the RR, has also written extensively against the “thought police” who push for this kind of legislation.

The RR’s solution to “hate crime” attacks is not to restrict speech, but rather prosecute vigorously those to physically attack a person or his or her property, regardless of who the perpetrator is or who the victim is.  That is truly equal protection under the law.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

I’m hoping that, through this series on the Religious Right (RR), I can shed some light on the RR, especially to other conservatives and Republicans who are wary of the RR.  This is not necessarily to defend the RR and every typical policy position of the RR, but to explain that there IS a logic and practicality to the positions and activism of the RR, as opposed to mere animus and ignorance, as critics allege.

Euthanasia/Doctor-Assisted Suicide is Wrong and Should Be Illegal

According to what the RR believes, life is sacred.  Death is not.  Death is the absence of life, just as dark is the absence of light.  Living human beings should be protected from harm by others from conception until natural death.  I already wrote about the RR’s position on abortion.

Some people assert that someone who is sick or disabled should be euthanized for their dignity and to ease their pain.  Why do some think death is more dignified?  How do you know the dead are not in pain?  We’d all like to think that someone we care for who is dies goes to “a better place” but how do we know that they do?  In the case of the RR, the redeemed or righteous are believed to be in a better place, but that’s because the Bible says so, and you won’t find euthanasia prescribed in the Bible.  Death is not dignified, no matter what the circumstances, so there is no virtue in suicide or euthanasia to “end suffering.”  "Death with dignity" is an empty promise.

There is a difference between letting someone die and killing them.  There is a difference between giving them medication to ease their pain and giving them something with the intention of killing them.  There is a difference between letting someone die from their organ/system failures and denying someone nutrition if they are bedridden.

Euthanasia has become a slippery slope in some parts of the world, in which the elderly are being killed because they are inconvenient and infants are being killed because they aren’t the Gerber Baby.

Some ask “What’s the difference?  This person doesn’t even know they are alive or who they are.”  Yes, but if YOU know who that person is, and that the person is a human being, and that is what matters.

If someone wants to kill themselves, it is hard to stop them, but doctors should not be in the business of helping them do it.  If they want to kill themselves and are unable to, that still should not allow someone else to commit homicide, certainly not a medical doctor.

Euthanasia has been facilitated by Darwinism and socialism.  Darwinism lets “enlightened” people believe that some human life is not worthy of life or is somehow less than human.  Socialism prompts the productive - and therefore the taxed - in society to seek to end the burdens caused by the old, sick, and disabled who require more health care and other assistance.  When you are told you are a burden on society, you are being pressured to die.  When you see that your family is struggling to take care of you, you may feel pressured to take the “legal, so it must be okay” remedy of having a doctor kill you.  It’s a nefarious slippery slope.

The Bible tells us to care for the sick, not to kill them, and to value life.  Many in the RR do just that.

A Human Being in the Embryonic Phase is Still a Human Being

The sanctity of life is also why the RR is against certain reproductive technologies, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.  They either kill human beings or produce human beings who will be killed because they are “unwanted”, “extra”, or have a deformity.  They are also turning human beings and their body parts into commodities.  Yes, they are small human beings, but they are human beings.

Contrary to all-too popular ridicule, the RR’s opposition is not because they are against progress or are scientifically ignorant.  Rather, they are well aware of the scientific facts involved.  They just do not want “progress” at the expense of innocent human beings, citing that science should serve humanity, not the other way around.

Fortunately, in the case of stem cells, there are promising treatments being developed by using “adult” stem cells, which do not result in the killing of a human being.

A genuine conviction in the sanctity of human life motivates the RR to oppose killing the young, the old, and the sick – no matter how young, how old, or how sick.  It is scary enough when individuals are allowed to kill other human beings for reasons other than legitimate personal protection.  It is much more scary when the government protects such actions, then supports or even mandates such actions.  Do we really want our government to be in the business of killing innocent human beings?