by Joe Levinson
The "feminist agenda" promoted by an equal-rights-for-women law defeated several years ago in Iowa "encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." These words were not spoken by a raving extremist futilely fuming on the sidelines of American politics or by a harmless fringe element ranting to the wind. Instead, they appeared in a fund-raising letter sent out by the Christian Coalition, the standard-bearer of the Religious Right and a major force within the Republican Party. The Coalition is by no means comprised of raving extremists or fringe elements, and it does have valid things to say. In general, its strong stance against the nation's moral decay is laudable. The solutions it proposes, however, along with the Religious Right's deceitful tactics, non-secular national agenda, and often bigoted and exclusionary stances, could pose a danger both to the newly-resurgent Republican Party and to the nation as a whole.
The self-proclaimed "Christian conservatives" promote an agenda based on "traditional" Christian values and morality. Religion, on its own, can indeed act as a bulwark against the undeniable moral decay of our nation. But when combined with politics to promote such ideas as prayer in schools, teaching creationism to students, full prohibition of abortions, television censorship, theological litmus tests for political candidates, and active discrimination against homosexuals, religion can be a dangerous tool of intolerance and bigotry and a threat to democracy.
The Religious Right can no longer be ignored or brushed aside as a fringe element. The Christian Coalition, the largest group within the Religious Right, was founded in 1989 by televangelist Pat Robertson from the left-over mailing lists of his failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Organized from the grass-roots level up, it has grown into a powerful and wide-reaching organization. Led by the charismatic 33-year-old Ralph Reed, the Coalition now has 1.4 million supporters organized into 1,100 chapters in all 50 states, along with a mailing list of 30 million and an annual budget of over $13 million dollars. The typical Coalition member, according to Reed, is a white, Baptist, 30-to-35-year-old semiprofessional woman, with a college education and some children. GOP pollster Bill McInturff reports that the Coalition and their partners now dominate twenty state Republican Parties, and one out of every five Republican voters would describe himself as a "fundamentalist."
Perhaps more important, however, is that the Religious Right controls 2,250 school boards, approximately 15% of the nation's total. Critics charge that such control has come about through "stealth tactics." In a stealth campaign, groups such as the Christian Coalition target low-turnout local races and promote their candidates, covering up any organizational ties. The voters are thus presented with a seemingly harmless secular candidate. Once placed in office by the combination of conservative Christian support and widespread voter apathy, the candidate then abruptly and vehemently pushes the agenda of the Religious Right. In this manner, the Coalition and its allies fool the voters into electing candidates based on partial truths.
In a recent article in Charisma magazine, Reed admitted regret for the Coalition's use of stealth tactics in the past and pledged to move away from them. Rebuilding the CoalitionÕs tarnished reputation by ostensibly changing its tactics is one of the key components of Reed's plans to change the image of the Religious Right. No longer content to stand on the outskirts of American politics, the Coalition and its allies aim for mass appeal. They now face what is known in political science as the "participation-moderation conflict." In order to gain more power and participate more extensively in the political system, a group must increase its membership by moderating its stance and thereby appealing to more centrist voters. Thus, the Coalition has softened, or at least ceased to emphasize, its stances on such volatile issues as abortion and gay rights. Instead, it presents to the voters such popular -- and secular -- issues as term limitations and welfare reform. The Christian Coalition even went so far as to lobby for the passage of NAFTA, a trade pact whose relation to any Christian agenda is unclear.
Such tactics are no less dangerous than the Coalition's past small-town stealth. It is a candidate's duty to fully inform voters of his stance on all relevant issues, rather than to emphasize popular stances and shy away from controversial issues. The sudden appearance of a proposed school prayer amendment to the Constitution shows the danger posed by these tactics. America elects a new Congress based on candidates' pledges to revive the economy and reform the welfare state, and instead is presented with a new moral and religious agenda for the nation.
The key danger of the Religious Right is its desire to impose on others not only its religious morality, but also its theological doctrines. This, of course, obscures the distinction between morality and religion. Can the two be separated? The answer, in the American tradition, is a resounding yes. In fact, to do otherwise would be a travesty of American justice. Our Founding Fathers, themselves mainly Deists, believed religious freedom to be paramount in a democracy. Religion, in their view, is a necessary element of life, but above all a private element.
No religion holds a moral monopoly; Reed himself seems to make at least token concession of this. At the Christian Coal-ition's "Road to Victory" conference, held in Washington this September, he included such seminars as "Jews and Christians in Unity" and "Catholic-Evangelical Cooperation." Reed's move to include other religions in the movement is admirable, but the movement remains overwhelmingly Protestant. At the Iowa Republican convention this June, delegates from the Religious Right made Christian belief an official basis for their support of candidates.
The morals, values, and beliefs often taught through religion, rather than religion itself, form the basis of our society. Religious disputes have caused millions of wartime casualties. America's strength has always been to rise above those disagreements and instead hold a common morality strengthened by the religion of individuals, but independent of the state. Advocates of the Religious Right would have us change this tradition, arguing that only through religious intervention in government (and vice versa) will society reverse its moral plunge. Instead of the Rainbow Curriculum, the proposed pro-homosexuality public school program recently defeated in New York City, they would give us creationism. Both are wrong and unsuitable. The Religious Right's attempted imposition of Christianity on school curricula is no less patriarchal and coercive -- therefore no less dangerous -- than the liberal programs it so abhors.
While many of the particular views of the Religious Right are foolish and bigoted, the beliefs and values that underlie its arguments are noble. There is nothing dangerous about the promotion of Christianity within the United States. Mixing religion with politics, however, is dangerous to the extreme. The Religious Right has made morality an issue in our nation once again, something for which they should be commended. It is time, however, to return this issue to where it belongs -- the churches and homes of private citizens.
As it stands today, our country is among the most religious on Earth. The average American is considerably more likely to believe in God and to attend religious services than his European counterparts. Faith is a powerful and pervasive force in American society. Yet despite the religious nature of our country, America's children are educated in an school environment that is totally secular, if not openly hostile to religion.
Things were not always this way. For much of our history, prayer was a daily ritual of American education. In thousands of American schools, teachers would lead students in reciting some form of prayer, usually nondenominational. In the process, students were encouraged to believe in God and to accept the moral life.
All of this began to change during the early 1960's, when the liberal activists on the Warren Court finally achieved a majority. In the 1962 case Engle v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that organized prayer violated the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of a state religion. The case dealt with a nondenominational prayer that had been proposed by the New York Board of Regents to be recited voluntarily in New York's public schools. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black outlined the court's opinion: "The indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing, officially approved religion is plain." In subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court has also banned Bible readings, moments of silence, and prayers at graduation and other school events.
These unfortunate rulings have left America's public schools devoid of any positive religious influence. Is this what the framers of the Constitution really had in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights? The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Nowhere in this statement does the Constitution specifically forbid nondenominational prayer in school. One must wonder whether Justice Black was interpreting the Constitution or rewriting it.
The relative merit of the Supreme Court's decision, however, may now be moot. The overwhelming victory the Republican party scored on Election Day this year has at last provided supporters the opportunity to pass a constitutional amendment making explicit the legality of school prayer. Already, Newt Gingrich, who is widely expected to be the next Speaker of the House, has come out in favor of such an amendment. While he has no doubt angered the ACLU and their associates, polls (according to NBC news et al) have shown that more than 70% of Americans support some form of prayer in school.
Even President Clinton left open the possibility that he would support a school prayer amendment. On November 16, Clinton said he would consider supporting an amendment depending upon its wording. In so doing, President Clinton drew fire from a number of liberal organizations, including People for the American Way. In typical Clinton fashion, the President switched his position two days later, supporting only a federal law allowing schools to have a moment of silence.
The feasibility of such a law is greatly in doubt. The Supreme Court found a moment of silence in schools to be unconstitutional in the 1985 case of Wallace vs. Jaffree. While the Court has become somewhat more conservative since 1985, its stance on school prayer has not wavered. As recently as 1992, in the case of Lee vs. Weisman, the Court found the inclusion of prayer at graduation ceremonies to be unconstitutional. In addition, the Court has become more liberal in the last two years with the retirement of moderately conservative Justice Byron White and his replacement by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Contrary to Clinton's rhetoric, it is increasingly apparent that only a constitutional amendment will restore God to AmericaÕs classrooms.
What form would such a constitutional amendment take? The one introduced into Congress on October 7 reads, "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer. Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools." Under such an amendment, decisions about the form of prayer in school would be left up to local districts. This respect for local autonomy would enable a school district to craft its prayer policy to suit the needs of the population it serves. School districts with a religiously diverse student body could require only a moment of silence, while more homogenous school districts might have a nondenominational prayer. Whatever its final effects on the local level, a prayer-in-school amendment would make America's public schools more inclusive of those who believe in God.
As we approach the end of the twentieth century, our society needs to take stock of the changes that have transformed America over the last 30 years. Over this time period this country has endured a general decline in morality, an explosion in the rate of violent crime, and the breakdown of the American family. While a number of factors have contributed to these dramatic changes, the failure of our education system to imbue many of America's children with a belief in morality must be considered among the greatest causes of society's decline.
For too long we have allowed a tiny minority of students to dictate educational policy. Is it truly worth sacrificing the interests of the vast majority of Americans who believe in God to avoid offending a handful of atheists? We have allowed atheism to replace religion in our nation's schools -- with devastating consequences for the rest of society. For American society to flourish in the years ahead, we must rebuild the moral foundation upon which this nation was built. Prayer in schools may not be the answer to all of our problems, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.