Countering the Radical Religious Right
By John Leland Berg
"Countering the Radical Religious Right" is a resource paper by Dr. John Leland Berg prepared under the auspices of the Center for Christian Ethics. Berg, a Trustee of the Center for Christian Ethics, wrote his doctoral dissertation for the Doctor of Philosophy degree at Baylor University on An Ethical Analysis of Selected Leaders and Issues of the New Religious Right. This paper was the basic position-paper document in hand when the Center for Christian Ethics convened its first gathering of the TB. Maston Colloquium for the purpose of considering the current challenge of the Radical Religious Right and then recommending a course of corrective action to interested individuals and organizations. The Maston Colloquium`s response to the challenge of the Radical Religious Right is printed, following this article, in this issue of Christian Ethics Today.
What is the Radical Religious Right? Who are these people and what are they about?
Organized religion historically has been involved significantly in the American political process. Early twentieth century American Fundamentalism, although politically conservative, tended to avoid entanglement in party politics. Under the leadership of Fundamentalists like J. Gresham Machen, Frank Norris, and Carl Mclntire, American Fundamentalism limited its political involvement to selected issues such as Prohibition, the teaching of evolution in public schools, and anti-Communist pronouncements. Some Fundamentalists, like Jerry Falwell of the 1960s, attributed the moral decline and civil strife within the United States to the fulfillment of dispensational premillenialist prophecy concerning the end times. In the sixties, these Fundamentalists did not emphasize political involvement because of their professed commitment to winning as many people as possible to Christ prior to Christ`s second coming. In the late 1 970s, however, Fundamentalist Christians were enticed onto the political stage by the then New Political Right, an ultra-conservative highly motivated, politically knowledgeable think tank of ideologues who were in basic agreement with the Republican party.
The Radical Religious Right evolved from a coalition of the Republican Party`s extreme right-wing faction and Fundamentalist Christianity. Republican ultra-conservatives Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, Howard Phillips, and the late Terry Dolan organized the then New Right movement in response to the perceived East Coast liberal domination of the Republican Party in the early 1970s. The leaders of the Republican far right concluded that a large segment of those who elected Jimmy Carter president in 1976 were conservative Christians. Viguerie, Phillips, and Weyrich, recognizing that conservative Christians were a potential power base who could be used effectively in political campaigns, began working in the late 1970s with Fundamentalist television preachers and para-church religionists such as Jerry Falwell, Tim and Beverly LaHaye (founders of Concerned Women of America), Charles Stanley, James Robison, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and D. James Kennedy to develop a plethora of Radical Religious Right organizations.
During the 1980s, the Radical Religious Right organizations established by such leaders and lesser lights like them across the land uniformly supported Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party which in those years had control of the Senate as well as the White House. However, the Religious Right recognized by 1986 that the Reagan administration had done little to accomplish the social agenda they espoused-abortion was still legal, state-sponsored prayers were still being prohibited in public schools, homosexuality was not measurably diminished, pornography was still in plentiful supply, federal government spending had skyrocketed, and the national debt had tripled.
The Radical Religious Right`s frustrations produced a splintered response from 1986-1988. Pat Robertson mounted an ill-fated campaign for the Republican Party`s presidential nomination. Jerry Falwell curried the favor of George Bush by endorsing him for the party`s nomination and was credited with helping Bush make his selection of Dan Quayle as his Vice-presidential choice. From 1988-92, Bush astounded much of middle America as he embraced the Radical Religious Right. Dan Quayle publicly demonstrated time and again that he had paid more attention to his golf game through the years than his studies. And ultra-conservatives such as Pat Buchanan, a devout Roman Catholic, grew angry with Bush over his breaking of his promise of "no new taxes." Pat Robertson, stinging from his failed Presidential bid, shifted his primary attention away from national politics toward seizing control of the Republican Party a precinct at a time through the efforts of his newly formed Christian Coalition. From 1988-1994 the Christian Coalition effectively took control of the Republican Party in several states and grew into a national force with which to be reckoned.
Buchanan and Robertson both garnered invitations to address the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston. With an entire nation watching, Robertson exposed his theocratic notions, and Buchanan spoke of a cultural civil war while being wildly applauded by his own version of a youth movement not dissimilar to Hitler`s Youth movement of the 1930s. Each spewed forth ideas alien to the founding principle of the Republican Party that that which governs best governs least. Voters by the thousands shifted their support away from George Bush and the Radical Religious Right`s dominating presence at the Republican National Convention to Ross Perot`s independent campaign and Bill Clinton`s more centrist leaning Presidential bid.
From 1992-94 Pat Robertson`s Christian Coalition and various other Radical Religious Right groups worked hard at precinct level politics and took effective control of such state G.O.P. conventions as Texas and South Carolina. Combined with President Clinton`s perceived alienation of middle America, the Christian Coalition claimed a substantial role in the G.O.P.`s overwhelming defeat of the Democratic Party in the fall elections of 1994.
The Christian Coalition says it spent $2 million distributing 33 million Coalition "voter guides" to 60,000 churches around the country. These guides were thinly veiled partisan expressions of the candidates` positions on various issues. In these guides, the Christian Coalition selected issues and simplified candidates` alleged positions in such a way as to favor Republican candidates and their proposed "Contract With America." "Coalition leaders claim their voter guides helped Republicans prevail in 50 important races. According to People for the American Way, a liberal activist group, 60% of all the candidates affiliated with or strongly supported by the religious right won their races. (1) Subsequently, in February of 1995, Pat Robertson`s Christian Coalition announced it would spend $1 million to help the Republican Party fulfill its "Contract With America.
Near the end of May, 1995, the Christian Coalition emerged with its demands for payback from the Republican Party for the Coalition`s support of the Republican "Contract With America" (about which, according to the pollsters, approximately half of those polled, knew nothing). With House Majority leader, Newt Gingrich, and Republican Senators running for President like Phil Gramm, nodding their approval and support, Ralph Reed, the Coalition`s executive director, announced the Christian Coalition`s "Contract With the American Family." This politically calculated "Contract With the American Family" is clearly a marketing tool and public relations repackaging of the political agenda of the ultra-conservative wing of the Grand Old Party.
The so-called "Contract With the American Family" seeks a constitutional prayer amendment giving government the power to prescribe prayer exercises as part of the public school day activities, government authorization of religious expressions through the use of religious symbols in public places (such as nativity scenes on courthouse lawns and pictures of Jesus and the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools and courtroom), and the use of taxpayer funds for parochial and private education. The "Contract With the American Family" also includes a demand for legislation outlawing certain abortion procedures used primarily in late-term abortions (which would be the first step toward outlawing all abortions), and the federal defunding of the Department of Education, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National Endowment for the Arts, all perceived to be liberal initiatives unworthy of government support. The partisan politics of the Christian Coalition`s "Contract With the American Family" exposes the subterfuge in Reed`s claim that this Coalition is non-partisan. The Radical Religious Right, including not only the Christian Coalition but also various other elements of the movement, last year exerted significant control of Republican parties in 13 states and actually dominated 18 others. Republican party Presidential hopefuls now come, hat in hand, seeking the Christian Coalition`s blessing and support.[2]
Thus far, the lone Republican Presidential candidate to challenge the Coalition is Senator Arlen Specter. He fears that the Christian Coalition`s intolerance of those who deviate from their agenda will resurface in the 1996 campaign as it did in 1992, again driving middle America away from the Republican Presidential candidate into the arms of some new Ross Perot. By placing on themselves the mantle of "savior of the American family," the Christian Coalition`s "Contract With the American Family" serves to make more palatable its partisan political agenda.
Another tactic has been used by the Radical Religious Right to provide a spoon full of sugar to make their medicine go down. They have played the victim of having been caricatured and falsely stereotyped as intolerant by the media and liberals. Recently, Reed reached out to the American Jewish Committee asking those present to form a working relationship with the Christian Coalition based on what he calls their mutual opposition to religious bigotry and intolerance. James Dunn, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs executive director has urged people to look beyond Reed`s rhetoric. "Frankly, I`m underwhelmed by a lot of the talk of religious liberty and mainstreaming and good words of pluralism with an organization that has the track record of the Christian Coalition.(3)
In scale, scope, and size the Radical Religious Right differs greatly from that part of Fundamentalism which was politically active in the 1920s-1960s. While their predecessors tended to focus on single issues (such as communism and evolution), the Radical Religious Right expands the agenda of their predecessors to include total support of a political ideology and the Republican political party. Francis Schaeffer, a self-described evangelist to intellectuals, became the pseudo-intellectual guru of Falwell, Robertson, LaHaye and D. James Kennedy and helped them transform themselves into religious/political ideologues. Schaeffer, a Fundamentalist Presbyterian who spent his formative theological years as Carl Mclntire`s assistant, received his theological education from Mclntire`s tiny Faith Theological Seminary in Philadelphia which Mclntire started because of his disagreements with the Presbyterians at Princeton and Westminster Seminaries. Schaeffer serves as the historic link between the Radical Religious Right and its politically active Fundamentalist predecessors.
The Radical Religious Right represents a strange amalgamation of disparate religious perspectives. For decades Fundamentalist Christians viewed Roman Catholicism as apostate religion and often viewed the Pope as Anti-Christ. Yet, in the development of the Radical Religious Right, Roman Catholics and Fundamentalists have joined forces. Their "unequally-yoked" marriage issues from more than their common opposition to legalized abortion and their common support for a voucher system to use government funds to help pay students` tuition at private, parochial, and sectarian schools. Their deeper bond is found in their common cultural orientation and their equally fervent rejection of church/state separation.
H. Richard Niebuhr`s Christ and Culture examines the various ways in which Christians relate to culture. He places Christian Fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism in his "Christ of culture" category. This Christ of culture typology sees a fundamental agreement between Christ and culture. Those persons who hold to this perspective see Christ as the hero of human culture with Christ`s life and teachings representing humanity`s greatest achievements. Christ himself is a part of culture, confirms the best of the past, and directs the process of civilization toward its goal. Christ acts as a magnet drawing the best things of culture toward himself until eventually he and culture are expected to merge in a millennial reign of righteousness with headquarters in Jerusalem. The problems in culture, this position holds, reside in nature and eventually will be resolved by Christ. Christians by exercising leadership in culture hasten the subduing of nature and the convergence of Christ and culture. Niebuhr places Christian Fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism in the Christ of culture position because each group longs for a bygone society dominated by the church.
Roman Catholicism is Christ of culture because of its desire to return to a culture similar to that of the thirteenth century where the Roman Catholic Church dominated society.
The Christian Fundamentalists who compose the leadership of the Radical Religious Right are Christ of culture because they symbolically baptize earlier cultural ideas and values as being the essence of the Christian society to which all Christians should now want to return. The previous culture baptized by the Radical Religious Right leaders as an example of true Christian society, is the society found in the twentieth century`s earliest decades. These decades produced Christian Fundamentalism as a reaction to the threat of modern theology, modern science, and modern cultural changes. In the minds of the leaders of the Radical Religious Right, the years prior to the 1 920s were a time when the Bible`s inerrant authority remained unchallenged and anti-evolution science was declared Christian. Laissez-faire capitalism was declared to be Christian economics, and Christian Fundamentalist leaders were closely identified with leading wealthy industrialists such as J. Howard Pew with the Sun Oil Company. These Fundamentalists generally equated wealth with spiritual blessing and preached that laissez-faire capitalism was Christian because it produced great wealth. Likewise the politics exercised by the Fundamentalists of this earlier era were conservative because of their desire to maintain the status quo and resist modernism`s often unwelcome cultural changes.
The Radical Religious Right desires the establishment of an ideal Christian society which requires adherence to the dogma of biblical inerrancy, teaches creationism as science, practices and proclaims the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism, is dominated by the philosophy of getting government off our backs except in the instances of abortion and school prayer where they seek government control on both issues, and is run from top to bottom by politically conservative Fundamentalist Christians. The Radical Religious Right, with its unlikely union of Christian Fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism, seeks a church-dominated society where:
- abortion is outlawed;
- homosexuality is returned to the closet;
- secular humanists and other liberals are run out of government, public education and the media;
- government ordered prayers and government mandated Bible readings are installed in public school classrooms;
- defense spending is increased;
- welfare funding for the poor is abolished; and
- taxpayer funds are used for private and parochial education.
The goal of much of the Radical Religious Right is a church controlled state or a modern theocracy.
The efforts of the Radical Religious Right to install a modern theocracy, established solely on its version of Judeo-Christian tradition, represents a Reformed tradition belief that the well-being of a nation depends on religious uniformity within that nation. Religious uniformity, however, even under the seemingly broad term "Judeo-Christian tradition," is not characteristic of America`s religious heritage. One observer notes that, "Any attempt to understand the religious situation in America must begin with the recognition of the fact of pluralism."(4) The United States of America is a two century old experiment in whether or not a society can survive with full religious liberty and a plurality of religious and even non-religious groups. This experiment, backed by the American civil authority defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, forced compromise on reluctant church persons who finally realized "that the only way they could get freedom for themselves was to grant it to all others."5~ However reluctantly, they finally did so.
The desired return to the church and state union preferences of the Reformed Tradition reveals the Radical Religious Right`s longing to shape contemporary society into the image of church-controlled New England prior to the American Revolution, or of Calvin`s Geneva before that. However, such a return would terminate America`s lively experiment of complete religious liberty within a pluralistic society that is governed by the give-and-take method of political compromise. The Radical Religious Right`s theocratic agenda offers little opportunity for the political compromise necessary for the continued existence of a pluralistic society.
In order to justify the establishment of such a theocracy, the Religious Right simply rewrites American history. It seeks to get people to believe their fabricated dogma that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Roman Catholic Bishop Fulton Sheen called separation of church and state "a shibboleth of doctrinaire secularism"; and the Southern Baptist Fundamentalist kingpin, WA. Criswell, has called this major plank in America`s platform of freedom "a figment of the imagination of infidels." Radical Religious Right leaders such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and D. James Kennedy declare almost daily that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that the alleged wall of separation between church and state is a myth forced on an unsuspecting public by secular humanists, liberals, infidels, and communists. With out-of-context historical proof texts, a revisionistic misrepresentation of American history a shameless distortion of facts, and whole-cloth inventions, the Radical Religious Right knows, as did Hitler`s propaganda chief officer Joseph Goebbels, that if you repeat a lie often enough, many people will eventually believe it is true. The Radical Religious Right`s perversion of American history must be exposed in order to thwart their efforts to transform this nation into the "Christian nation" it has never been.
When the Radical Religious Right speaks of the tremendous influence of religion in general and Christianity in particular on the founding of our country, they recognize an undeniably significant influence. Frequently, the Radical Religious Right will allude to Puritan John Winthrop`s sermon entitled "A Model of Christian Charity" delivered on board the ship carrying Winthrop and other Puritans to the new land. Winthrop, the first leader of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, envisioned America as a new Promised Land and likened the crossing of the Atlantic to Old Testament Israel`s crossing of the Red Sea. Winthrop was influenced deeply by John Calvin`s concept of the city-republic where the church, in essence, controlled the city-state.~6~ It should be remembered that John Calvin, father of the Reformed tradition, burned at the stake the Spanish physician, Michael Servetus, because Calvin viewed his beliefs about the Trinity as heretical. The place of execution was Calvin`s theocratic city-republic of Geneva. Indeed, "In five years, 1542-46, Geneva, with 16,000 inhabitants, had fifty-seven executions and seventy-six banishments. All these sentences were sanctioned by Calvin."~ Previously, Martin Luther had called for summary execution of troublesome Anabaptists who would not conform to his modified Catholicism.
Massachusetts became a colony where religious dissenters such as Baptists, Quakers, Catholics, Jews, and other non-Congregationalists were taxed, fined, arrested, publicly flogged, banished, and even hanged for their religious beliefs. These Puritans, themselves persecuted in England, became themselves zealous persecutors of those who held beliefs at odds with those of their Congregational church.
While Massachusetts was a hotbed of religious persecution, Roger Williams and Dr. John Clark established Rhode Island as a lively experiment in total religious liberty. After 12 years of negotiation, King Charles II of England granted the long sought charter for the new colony of Rhode Island on 8 July 1663.[8] The charter read in part:
And whereas, in their human address, they have freely declared, that it is much on their hearts (if they may be permitted), to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained.., true piety rightly grounded upon gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to true loyalty….That our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time thereafter, shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion in matters of religion, and does not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every person and persons, may from time to time, and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his or their own judgments and consciences…J`
As a result of this Charter, Rhode Island became a safe haven for persons of all expressions of faith or lack thereof. None was persecuted for religious beliefs.
At the time of the nation`s founding, of the thirteen original colonies, nine had state-established churches and four did not. Still, only five to seven percent of the population identified themselves as members of any organized church.10 Again, the Radical Religious Right leaders speak approvingly of the established churches in nine of those original thirteen colonies. Many of their historical proof texts come from the 1600-1700s prior to the Revolutionary War, the formation and ratification of the Constitution, and the eventual passage of the Bill of Rights. They do not, understandably, tell of the religious persecution which took place in the colonies with those established churches.
Likewise, the Radical Religious Right completely ignores the writings of Roger Williams from this same period in which Williams refers to the "hedge or wall between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." Williams adds,
All civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations, are.., essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors or defenders of the Spiritual, or Christian, state and worship… .An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a whole nation or civil state confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.(11?)
Even as early as the 1650s, colonists like Roger Williams, Dr. John Clark and others were recognizing the value of keeping church and state separate and distinct from one another. This is an insight that is escaping the voices of the Radical Religious Right.
A common and clearly not accidental mistake made by the Radical Religious Right in their rewriting of American history, is to speak of the nation`s founders as being one in thought or world view with the deeply religious persons who established those colonies with state churches. The John Winthrops of the 1630s and the Thomas Jeffersons of the 1780s, however, have radically different views of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The nation`s founders were those present at and involved in the establishment of the United States of America in the late 1700s as independence was declared, fought for, and won. The nation`s founders are those responsible for the ensuing Constitution and later the Bill of Rights. The founding documents of our nation are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States together with its Bill of Rights. It is not difficult to know the thinking of our nation`s founders. One needs only to examine the historical record-something the Radical Religious Right has simply refused to do.
Jerry Falwell reveals his appallingly revisionistic view of America`s founders. He declares:
Any diligent student of American history finds that our great nation was founded by godly men upon godly principles to be a Christian Nation. Our Founding Fathers were not all Christians, but they were guided by Christian principles. They developed a nation predicated by Holy Writ. The religious foundations of America find their roots in the Bible.12
Falwell and other Radical Religious Right leaders commonly read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as one. Falwell states, "Let us never forget that as our Constitution declares, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights."13 Here, Falwell confuses the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. While the Declaration of Independence refers to Creator, Nature`s God, Supreme Judge and divine Providence, the Constitution does not mention God or Christianity at all. The only reference to religion at all in the Constitution is in Article VI where it states that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
As author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson`s beliefs are easily discerned. The so-called Jefferson Bible, edited by Jefferson himself, excludes all references to the miraculous, leaves Jesus Christ in the tomb, and includes primarily the ethical teachings of the Old Testament prophets and Jesus` Sermon on the Mount. Jefferson was an heir of Enlightenment rationalism as it had been tempered by Protestant Christianity. Jefferson was a once born man whose genius rested in his ability to bring together Reformation Puritans from the right (such as the New England Congregationalists), religious liberty dissenters from the left (such as Baptists and Quakers), and Enlightenment deists like himself who could be united in forging a new nation."14
Jerry Falwell and the Radical Religious Right often refer to a plea Benjamin Franklin made to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. During a particularly difficult time where the representatives appeared to be at an impasse over issues of the convention, Franklin made a motion requesting that a minister be brought in to "officiate" in a daily prayer service. He apparently believed that the lack of a formal daily prayer from the beginning of the convention, 25 May 1787, until that day, 28 June 1787, might have been responsible for so little progress being made in the convention. Falwell explains:
Benjamin Franklin then proposed that the congress adjourn for two days to seek divine guidance. When they returned, they began each of their sessions with prayer. The stirring speech of Benjamin Franklin marked a turning point in the writing of the Constitution, complete with a Bill of Rights.15
Falwell`s story concerning Franklin and the Constitutional Convention undergirds the Radical Religious Right`s contention that America has from the beginning been a Christian nation. Falwell describes Franklin`s plea as bringing the convention to its senses and to its knees in prayer to God. He implies that after the convention adjourned for two days to seek divine guidance, God responded by enabling the convention to formulate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with little further difficulty. Falwell`s version, now frequently repeated in Radical Religious Right circles, bears little resemblance to the historical event.
The Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison renders the historically accurate account. Toward the end of the day on Thursday, 28 June 1787, Franklin made his plea for seeking divine guidance. He then moved,
that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that Service.1161
Madison`s records show that Alexander Hamilton and others opposed the motion because it might give the impression of a convention rife with dissension. A compromise motion was made that the convention request a sermon be preached on 4 July 1787 and from then on begin the daily meetings of the convention with prayer. Franklin seconded the motion. Some members attempted to postpone the motion with a move for adjournment. After several unsuccessful attempts, the adjournment was carried without any vote on the motion. The motion was not taken up on Friday, 29 June 1787 (the next day) when the convention reconvened. Franklin, himself, noted that with the exception of three or four others, most of the representatives thought prayers were unnecessary)171 The convention did not adjourn for two days nor did they use prayer exercises to open the convention`s future daily meetings. The Bill of Rights was not introduced then but was adopted on December 15, 1791 as the first ten Amendments after the states ratified the Constitution itself.[18]
The Constitution makes no mention of God or deriving authority or power from God. Yet, the Radical Religious Right implies that the framers of the Constitution were religiously orthodox people, with 52 of 55 alleged to have been orthodox evangelical Christians. The following description of the religious composition of the Convention exposes the Radical Religious Right`s deceitful misrepresentation of the makeup of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Clinton Rossiter points out that,
Whatever else it might turn out to be, the Convention would not be a "Barebone`s parliament." Although it had its share of strenuous Christians.. the gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country.. and most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit.`19`
The document they produced was a rationalistic, secular document. Further, verification of this fact is found in the rebuffed attempt by Maryland representative Luther Martin to show preference to those who were Christians. In his report to Maryland lawmakers, he stated that, "in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.`~I2o] The 1787 Convention rejected his views and presented the Constitution to the thirteen colonies as a secular document.
When the Constitution was presented to Virginia, Baptists such as John Leland were vehement in their opposition to the Constitution-not because it was a secular document but because it contained no guarantees for absolute religious liberty. Prior to the Revolutionary War, Virginia Baptists and other dissenters to the Anglican Church in Virginia had suffered severe persecution at the hands of the State Church. Hence, they opposed adoption of a Constitution that failed to guarantee religious liberty.
When James Madison learned of the Baptists` and other dissenters` concerns, he arranged a meeting with John Leland. Madison assured Leland that if the Baptists would support Madison and the Constitution, that he (Madison) would personally ensure the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution which would incorporate the religious liberty guarantee sought by the Baptists.`21` As a result of Leland and Madison`s work, the very first portion of the First Amendment to the Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…." Prior to the 1787 Convention, Madison, Leland and Jefferson, likewise, had been influential in passing Jefferson`s "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" in Virginia in 1786. Jefferson`s bill was a precursor to the First Amendment and helps us understand Jefferson`s keen interest in religious liberty. Jefferson frequented Leland`s preaching because of their mutual respect and friendship. John Leland`s own view of church/state relations is clearly stated in his declaration that, "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever."`22` Leland`s views evidently had some influence on Jefferson.
One would think that when Thomas Jefferson explained what the First Amendment means in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, that such explanation would represent the founding fathers` understanding of the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, the Radical Religious Right has sought to discredit Jefferson`s letter of explanation to the Danbury Baptists as being nothing more than a hastily written note to gain the favor of a political constituency. Again, the Radical Religious Right distorts the historical facts. The setting of the letter is this: It is 1802, Jefferson is President of the United States and he is under fire from conservative religious leaders for his strong views on religious liberty. He seeks the advice of his attorney general Levi Lincoln concerning his letter because he viewed his response as an opportunity to sow "useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."1231 Jefferson`s letter to the Danbury Baptists reads in part:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" thus building a wall of separation between church and state.`24`
Jefferson`s Danbury letter has been cited on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment (See 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. and 1947 Everson v. Board of Education).
Many of the Radical Religious Right leaders assert that in 1892 the Supreme Court declared that the United States is a Christian nation. The assertion is not true. The statement alluded to occurred in "dicta" or "a gratuitous statement that is not essential to the court`s holding." In the dicta, Justice Brewer cited 87 reasons for his opinion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs points out that "these precedents were not case decisions but mainly examples taken from pre-constitutional documents, historical practice, colonial charters and the like which reveal our undisputed religious roots6. Justice Brewer failed then, as does the Radical Religious Right today, to mention the 1797 trade agreement called the Treaty of Tripoli between the United States and the Muslim region of North Africa. This treaty, signed after negotiations under George Washington, clearly states, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. "126]
The Radical Religious Right also declares that since the 1962 and 1963 Supreme Court decisions prohibiting government-mandated prayer and Bible readings, public school performance has declined and social ills have increased. This faulty logic assumes that if two things happen in sequence, then the first event caused the second.[271 One could just as easily insist that society`s decline began not in 1962 but eight years earlier when the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. While we have seen declines in many social areas, our nation also has experienced many important advances-space flights, moon landings, successful vital organ transplants, the ability to do prenatal surgery and keep premature babies alive even when they weigh less than a pound, and the end of the Cold War. Why not "blame" these advances on those same Supreme Court decisions?
Voluntary prayer and Bible reading occur every day in public schools across our land, in part due to math tests and also because of equal access legislation. Voluntary prayer has not been prohibited and never could be outlawed. The various versions of a prayer amendment the Radical Religious Right seeks to champion with Congress move far beyond the stated desire to accommodate religious expressions in public schools. In reality, the Radical Religious Right desires the government to establish and mandate by law specific religious practices in our nation`s public schools.
To counter the Radical Religious Right, it should be remembered that American history was shaped by religion in its earliest years as some of those who escaped religious persecution became persecutors themselves. Approximately 150 years passed between the settling of America, the Revolutionary War, and the birthing of the new nation. The historical development of the United States Constitution and the subsequent passage of the Bill of Rights demonstrate that the founding leaders of our country adamantly rejected a church-controlled state and its abridgment of total freedom of conscience in all matters of religion. Instead they opted for complete religious liberty and non-governmental support of any and all sectarian beliefs, thus establishing this lively experiment in democracy through powerful secular documents with authentic spiritual insights as their foundation.
Set free from the shackles of government support and interference and prohibition, religious opinion, conviction, and free expression continue to flourish throughout American society. Should the Radical Religious Right succeed in its efforts to resurrect Calvin`s Geneva, the first freedom, the freedom to profess or not to profess belief in God according to the dictates of one`s own conscience, would be shattered. Other freedoms of expressions- speech, the press, and the right to assemble-would then be jeopardized. The Radical Religious Right`s agenda has been tried before in Europe and elsewhere; and it failed miserably. That agenda must be exposed to the light of truth and rejected.
Responsible citizens in general and concerned Christians in particular can counter the Radical Religious Right`s currently threatening initiatives; but eternal vigilance is the price of our continued liberty.
Endnotes
[1] Christopher John Farley, "Prodding Voters to the Right," Time. November 21, 1994, p. 62.
[2] See Jeffrey H. Bernbaum, "The Gospel According to Ralph," Time. May 15, 1995, pp. 28-35.
[3] James M. Dunn, Report From the Capitol. May 16, 1995, p.
[4] Sydney E. Mead, The Nation With the Soul of a Church, (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), p. 29.
[5] Ibid., p. 131.
[6] See Robert Bellah`s work on "Civil Religion in America," Daedalus 6 (Winter 1967): 1-21.
[7] Lars P. Qualben, A History of the Christian Church. (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1942), p. 272.
[8] W.R. Estep, "Baptists and the Public Policy in Historical Context," an unpublished paper, pp. 5ff.
[9] Cited in Estep, p. 5.
[10] Martin Marty, Righteous Empire: The Protestant Experience uiArn~tica (New York: The Dial Press, 1970), pp. 39-40.
[11] Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States. (New York: Harper and Brothers, Vol. I), p. 199.
[12] Jerry Falwell, Listen America!, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1980), p. 29.
[13] Ibid., p. 20.
[14] Robert Linder, "Religion and the American Dream: A Study in Confusion and Tension," Mennonite Life 4 (December, 1983): 18-19.
[15] Falwell, Listen America!. pp. 43-44.
[16] James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1966), p. 210.
[17] Madison, pp. 210-211. See also Max Ferrand, ed., Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. rev. ed., 4 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966) 1: 452. Ferrand`s footnote refers to a note on Franklin`s manuscript which states that with the exception of three or four, most thought prayers unnessary.
[18] Jack R. Van Der Slik, "Respecting an Establishment of Religion in America," Christian Scholar`s Review 13 (1984): 223-234.
[19] Clinton Rossiter, 1787: The Grand Convention (New York: MacMillan Co., 1966), pp. 147-148.
[20]Cited in "In 1962 Madalyn Murray O`Hair Kicked God, the Bible andPrayer Out of School, and Ten Other Myths About Church and State," Americans United for Separation of Church and State, p. 8.
[21] See Estep, p. 10-12.
[22] See Estep and Baptist Heritage Calendar, The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.
[23] Cited in "In 1962…," pp. 5-6.
[24] Ibid., pp. 5-6.
[25]"A Critique of America`s Godly Heritage by David Barton," formulated by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, p. 9.
[26] See "In 1962…," pp. 8-9.
[27]Ibid., p. 14.
