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

Who am I to talk about the Religious Right?  I was politically aware long before I could vote.  I’ve voted in every major election since I became eligible.  I attend a church – one I didn’t grow up attending - where a significant percentage of the membership would likely identify as members of the Religious Right (RR).  For many years, I’ve analyzed the literature, media, broadcasts, voting guides, and fundraising mailers of organizations and their representatives regularly cited as being members of the RR – The Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Prison Fellowship, and others.

I aim to give an overview of what the RR does, what motivates the RR, and the positions of the RR.

Below, you will find my first installment.


The Religious Right Votes, and Has Every Right To

You can dismiss the Religious Right as just a bunch of hateful, backward kooks who blindly follow ignorant or unscrupulous leaders and superstitious ancient nonsense, but you would be doing yourself a disservice.

Just who is the Religious Right (RR), and why they do what they do?  Even if you are vehemently opposed to what the RR stands for, you should keep reading, because it could give you some useful insight or at least a more informed understanding of the RR.

The RR consists of Christians and Jews of a conservative political philosophy who are quite often traditional/conservative in their theology and understanding of Scripture, and who integrate their faith with their politics, as they integrate their faith with every area of their lives.

Both the RR and its detractors recognize the political and cultural clout and influence of the RR.  In fact, Democrat strategists are clearly looking for ways to “herd the sheep” to their camp, trying to capitalize on the natural fragmentation that occurs when a significant number of a population group (evangelicals, in this case) become politically active.  Inevitably, someone will come up with a somewhat coherent philosophical system that marries Democrat politics with evangelical issues, thereby providing what is perceived to be a viable alternative to registering as and voting Republican simply because they are a Bible-believing Christian who has become politically active.  After all, some people don’t like to be seen as marching in lockstep with too many others, or resist applying their faith to every area of their life, or simply have personality/taste/style clashes with those they identify as iconic Republicans.  If you’re not fond of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, you can’t possibly be part of the RR, right?

That Democrat strategy appears to focus mainly on the Bible-believer’s tendency to want to join do-gooder groups that do things like care for the poor and marginalized and  protect the environment (God’s creation); or feel like they are making a difference by going against what they perceive as the flow of power in an imperfect world; or feel like they are being forgiving and aiding redemption by protecting and going easy on criminals; and convincing the believer that government force is the best, most effective, or at least an appropriate way to reach these ends.

This tactic by Democrats is a refreshing change from the previous tactic, which seemed to be “You shouldn’t vote at all because there is a separation of church and state.” Or “You should ignore your faith when you vote, since there are other people here who do not share your faith.”  I always found the first argument false and that second argument ponderous, considering the people telling the RR to but out are surely voting based on their personal priorities instead of worrying about hurting the feelings of someone in the RR.

Aren’t Bible-believing, praying, church/synagogue/temple-attending folks equal citizens?  Don’t citizens have the right to vote as they choose to?  The last I checked, there was no clause in the Constitution or law in the land that said that some voters weren’t allowed to vote for a candidate or write in a candidate if their decision was going to be based on or influenced by religion, and that elected officials were not allowed to vote according to their personal principles.  Are Christians (evangelicals) and conservative (small c) Jews really not supposed to vote?  And if they vote, are they supposed to forget their faith?  Are they supposed to apply their faith and their way of looking at the world to every area of their lives except politics?  You vote how you want to vote - why shouldn’t the RR?  People may make their voting decisions based on things their union has told them, things their favorite news anchor has said, things their favorite author, celebrity, or talk show host has said.  Why can’t they allow their deepest convictions to guide them simply because those convictions were informed by their religion?

Furthermore, just like any other citizen, isn’t a person in the RR allowed to try to persuade others to his or her position?  It is laughable when people who forcefully proclaim their political views in the halls of academia, in journalism, in entertainment (plays, books, films, songs, concerts, television shows), on t-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers, and in demonstrations/rallies bemoan that people in the RR are trying to “preach” to them.

In a democratic, representative republic with the freedoms of speech, religion, and association, members of the RR have just as much right to vote as any other citizens, and many of them do vote.

The RR, being conservative, also seeks to conserve such things as the nuclear family as the basic autonomous societal unit; the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; the country as a superpower; the Constitution; the Church, its place in the local community, and religious freedom; the place of Christianity and Judaism in the American culture; and certain laws, traditions, customs, morals, and standards.  It also seeks to re-institute some things that have been changed or eliminated in recent years, such as protections for the unborn, parental rights, and the public acceptability of certain behaviors.  In the process, they react to and attempt to counter the efforts of those seeking to maintain the recent changes and bring about additional changes.  The RR does this through legal, peaceable means such as personal choices, ownership and leadership of property, organizations and businesses, peer and family pressure, pressure on sponsors/advertisers, persuasive media, voting, voter registration and information drives, and courtroom actions.

Aside from a strong support of the U.S. military and self defense, in general, the RR does not advocate violence, such as wife beating, bombing abortion clinics, or assaulting homosexual people - in fact, the RR tends to strongly denounce violence against individuals and property.  A notable exception is when Pat Robertson appeared to advocate the assassination of a foreign leader.

Given the tactics employed by the RR and the percentage of the populace that somewhat agrees with most of the RR agenda, the RR is hardly fringe or extremist, despite what some critics claim.  There are three main reasons that the RR draws such strong criticism.  First and foremost is that the RR opposes the agenda of Leftist activists and some libertarian ideals.  Understandably, Leftist activists and libertarians would rather not have the opposition.  Secondly, some people oppose the idea of “mixing religion and politics”.  However, as I already discussed, why shouldn’t people apply their deeply held convictions to their political leanings and activities?  Are the critics not applying their deeply held convictions, or are they basing their politics on nothing in particular?  This objection is usually the first objection, thinly disguised.  Finally, some object to the RR because of the “attitude” of the RR, mostly that the critics perceive that the RR claims to have “the answers” and that “we’re right and everyone else is wrong”.  While humility is a good thing and there is no doubt in my mind that sometimes RR leaders fail to be humble or gentle, this often implies that the critics of the RR have little certainty about the rightness or validity of their own positions.  Only an illogical person or a coward refuses to conclude that if his position is right, any mutually exclusive position is wrong.

You may not like the RR, but you shouldn't just swallow that the critics of the RR say without taking these things into consideration.  That’s all for now.  I will continue this in another post.