The Baylor scholars found, not surprisingly, that when it comes to religion and politics, evangelicals were by far the most conservative. What was perhaps somewhat surprising—it sure is revealing—is that there is no explanatory value attached to mainline Protestants: in other words, their religion does not inform their politics at all. 53 Looks like their quest for assimilation has been achieved.
Nothing separates evangelicals and the mainline denominations more than abortion. Two-thirds of evangelicals think that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, compared to 45 percent in the general population. 54 Mainline Protestants are not only tolerant of abortion, the leadership actively promotes abortion rights. Agencies of the Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and the United Church of Christ all belong to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The coalition brooks no compromise on abortion, supporting abortion on demand through term and is strongly opposed to any ban on partial-birth abortion.
There are strong differences with regard to support for Israel as well. On the one hand, there is Pastor John Hagee’s tireless efforts to raise money for Israel, as well as his annual conference, Christians United for Israel. On the other hand, there is the Jerusalem-based Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, a left-wing group that has long sought to get the mainline denominations in the United States to divest their assets in firms doing business in Israel.
Sabeel works with the World Council of Churches and the United Methodist Board of Global Ministries, as well as other leftist groups, seeking to pressure the Israeli government on the issue of Palestinian rights. And that’s because they buy into liberation theology: it paints Israel as an oppressive colonial power that must be defeated. No denomination has bought this hook, line, and sinker more than the elites at the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). They have so polarized their church that one expert has said, “The Presbyterian denomination is very divided and facing a potential schism.” 55
The saboteurs have created a mess for the Protestant faithful. Just like their Catholic ideological kin, they have been very successful in tearing things down. That they have nothing constructive to offer is plain to see. And that’s because they have infinitely more in common with hard-core secularists than they do rank-and-file Christians.
CHAPTER 10
The Perfect Cultural Storm
Secular saboteurs within the ranks of Catholicism and Protestantism are not going to give up, but they are also not likely to win. The senior citizens who largely comprise this segment of the population need new recruits if their agenda is to be met. While young people may be somewhat indifferent to religion, they are not screaming mad at their churches. And that’s where the Catholic dissidents and the Protestant malcontents come up short. Sociologist Ken Sanchagrin was “astounded to see that by and large the growing churches are those that we ordinarily call conservative.” Conversely, “the more liberal the denomination, by most people’s definition, the more they were losing.” 1
This is good news, but what remains an open question is how the culture war is going to play out in the end. Tensions between religious conservatives and secular activists are nothing new in American history, but today they are at a boiling point. According to Princeton’s Robert Wuthnow, who has been tracking the differences between traditionalists and modernists for decades, the social divide is likely to grow. 2 The number of players is relatively small but their social and cultural effects are enormous.
Central to the battle between secularists and traditionalists are issues governing sexuality and the public role of religion. When these twin areas of contention intersect, they have the makings of the perfect cultural storm. Indeed, it is on this turf that the culture war will be decided, the outcome of which will determine the content of the normative order. Nothing touches the heart and soul of the culture more than sexuality and religion, and nothing mobilizes secular saboteurs to war on the faithful more than challenges to their sexually libertine agenda.
The issue of gay marriage is front and center. How will the right of two men to marry affect religion? According to Anthony Picarello, past president and general counsel of the Becket Fund, “the impact will be severe and pervasive.” Indeed, he says, “This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations.” Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, concurs. Does this mean that churches and religious charities will lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage? “That,” says Stern, “is the 18 trillion dollar question.” 3
What’s in play is no small list of concerns. Referring to Stern’s observation, Peter Steinfels writes, “He has in mind schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.” 4 With regard to education, gay marriage will affect religious schools in admissions, employment, housing, and regulation of clubs. Licensing will also be impacted, especially laws affecting psychological clinics, social workers, and marital counselors. 5
Chai Feldblum is one of the most prolific legal activists in the gay rights arena. The Georgetown University law professor recognizes that laws banning discrimination against gays will continue to burden religious institutions, and though she is sympathetic to such concerns, she says that in a contest between religious liberty and gay rights, the right choice isn’t difficult. “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win,” she says. For Feldblum, “There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.” 6 What is particularly striking about her formulation is that religious liberty is affirmed in the First Amendment, and yet there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding sexual liberty. No matter, Stern is correct to conclude that “this is going to be a train wreck.” 7
To be sure, those out to sabotage America with their secular agenda are pushing hard for a train wreck. They are led, on the intellectual front, by the new atheists: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. The so-called Four Horseman are fueled by religious hatred and a contempt for the religious traditions that mark Western civilization. Mike Sullivan, president of Catholics United for the Faith, labels them “positively evangelical,” noting their aggressive style. 8 Some are beyond the pale. University of Minnesota professor Paul Z. Myers, an atheist who runs in the same circles as Dawkins, showcased his indecency when he intentionally desecrated the Eucharist in 2008. 9 It doesn’t get much lower than this.
The ideological fervor of the new atheists blinds them to the positive role religion plays in the promotion of a free society. But not all agnostics and atheists are secularists at heart. Surely Guenter Lewy is not. In the 1990s, this renowned social scientist started a book on secular humanism and moral relativism with the expressed intent of showing how they neither undermined the meaning and significance of human life nor contributed to the erosion of moral values. He ended up unable to support his thesis. Indeed, he came to realize how indispensable religion is to the moral order. “We know of no society anywhere that has managed to build a culture devoid of religion,” he wrote. For good reason: “The great universal religions in particular have taught the virtues of disinterested goodwill, social responsibility, and individual integrity, without which no society will flourish.” 10
The new atheists can complain all they want, but they cannot rebut certain verities. “No society has yet been successful in teaching morality without religion,” argues Lewy, “for morality cannot be created.” Morality, as Lewy observes, “requires the support of tradition, and this tradition is generally linked to religious precepts.” 11 He is not easy on secular firebrands, the kind cut from the cloth of the Four Horsemen. He attributes to
them a “selfish and hedonistic individualism” that reduces moral issues to civil liberties. “They herald the toleration of destructive behavior as a blow struck on behalf of personal freedom,” he says. Worse, “They turn moral relativism into a protective umbrella for all kinds of eccentricities, not to say moral depravities.” 12 Lewy, an agnostic, proposes an affirmation of “the most basic moral precepts of the Judeo-Christian tradition,” 13 a prescription that would drive the secular saboteurs right off the cliff.
The militant atheists will stop at nothing, and that is why they must be relentlessly confronted by religious conservatives. As Gertrude Himmelfarb has noted, counterrevolutions are not easy to sustain, though she is encouraged by the “ecumenical spirit” that is “evident in the alliances among traditionalists of all faiths.” 14
Deal Hudson, author of an important book on the growing alliance between traditional Catholics and evangelicals, is also encouraged by the willingness of religious conservatives to put aside their theological differences by joining hands in the culture war. 15 Look what happened in California over the Proposition 8 controversy. Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, Muslims, Latinos, and African Americans played a decisive role in defending the traditional understanding of marriage, making California the thirtieth state to ban gay marriage by referendum. Moreover, Catholic and Orthodox bishops in Europe held a forum in December 2008 committing themselves to a common defense of marriage and the family. Bosnian Orthodox theologian Vaclav Jezek spoke for many when he opined that “The family is not the product of a coincidence, but rather the perfect image of communion.” 16
Rabbi Daniel Lapin says it all when he opines that “As long as people share the same moral vision for America’s public square, it is less important whether that vision is fueled by Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist or Moslem faith.” What counts is that “We must not allow secularism’s high priests to separate us from one another.” 17 That is not likely to happen, if only because the stakes are so high that only fringe elements in these religions will balk at an alliance.
If there is one area where traditionalists have an edge, it is in their commitment to having children. The numbers that really count are found in birth rates, and this is a war the secularists are losing. In their green-tinted vision of the world, there are already too many people. Hence, their fondness for contraception and abortion. Not so with religious conservatives: they continue to breed like rabbits.
After looking at the numbers, one poor soul, San Francisco columnist Mark Morford, issued a clarion call to his fellow secularists. The statistics, he said, “are ugly, getting uglier: Despite all divine hope and prayer to the contrary, it looks like baby-happy conservatives are outbreeding liberals by a margin of some 20 to 40 percent.” He calls this a “trend,” indeed an “onslaught.” 18 He’s right. Chalk up a big win for religious conservatives. It looks like nature, and nature’s God, really is on the side of the angels.
NOTES
Catalyst is the monthly journal of the Catholic League.
Chapter 1: Revenge of the Nihilists
1. Samuel G. Freedman, Jew vs. Jew: The Struggle for the Soul of American Jewry (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), p. 23.
2. Robert George, The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion and Morality in Crisis (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2001), pp. 3–4.
Chapter 2: Multicultural Sabotage
1. S. L. Price and Andrea Woo, “The Indian Wars,” Sports Illustrated, March 4, 2002, pp. 66–71.
2. Ron Charles, “Jesus in America: His Changing Image,” Christian Science Monitor, December 23, 2003, p. 18.
3. Dinesh D’Souza, “The Secular Crusade Against Religion,” Catalyst, January-February 2007. This article was adapted from his book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (New York: Doubleday, 2006).
4. Most surveys say the Christian population in the U.S. is just over or under 80 percent. It is estimated that only 72 percent of Israelis are Jewish. See Tovah Lazaroff, “28% of Israelis not Jewish,” Jerusalem Post, June 12, 2002, p. 2.
5. Timothy Samuel, Shah and Monica Duffy Toft, “Why God Is Winning,” Foreign Policy, July 1, 2006.
6. Garry Wills, “A Country Ruled by Faith,” New York Review of Books, November 16, 2006.
7. For a cogent reply to this idea see M. Stanton Evans, “The Christian History of the U.S. Constitution,” Human Events, April 19, 1995, pp. 11–13.
8. Ibid.
9. M. Stanton Evans, The Theme Is Freedom (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1994), p. 34.
10. Ibid., p. 35.
11. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 471 (1892).
12. “Many Americans Uneasy with Mix of Religion and Politics,” Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, August 24, 2006, p. 4.
13. “California Courthouse Triggers Big Controversy,” Catalyst, November 2004.
14. “Jewish Organizations Split Over Pledge Case Strategy,” Forward, November 14, 2003.
15. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, America’s Real War (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah, 1999), p. 14.
16. Don Feder, “Yes—Once and for All—America Is a Christian Nation,” Catalyst, June 2005.
17. Richard Bernstein, Dictatorship of Virtue: Multiculturalism and the Battle for America’s Future (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), pp. 4, 7.
18. William Donohue, “They Made the Right Choice,” Catalyst, June 2005. See also John Mortimer, The Oxford Book of Villains (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
19. Joseph Ratzinger and Marcello Pera, Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam (New York: Basic Books, 2006), pp. 78–79. The words quoted are those of Ratzinger.
20. Herbert London, America’s Secular Challenge: The Rise of a New National Religion (New York: Encounter Books, 2008), p. 3.
21. Jacques Steinberg, “Yale Returns $20 Million to an Unhappy Patron,” New York Times, March 15, 1995, p. A1.
22. Robert Royal, 1492 and All That: Political Manipulations of History (Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1992).
23. Diane Ravitch, The Language Police (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003), pp. 142–146.
24. Gilbert T. Sewall, Islam in the Classroom: What the Textbooks Tell Us, a report by the American Textbook Council, 2008, pp. 24, 27.
25. Ravitch, The Language Police, pp. 20–22, 114–115.
26. Stephen L. Carter, God’s Name in Vain: The Wrongs and Rights of Religion in Politics (New York: Basic Books, 2000), p. 187.
27. James Martin, “An Interview with Camille Paglia,” America, November 12, 1994.
28. Jason Mattera, “PC Campus: Academia’s Top 10 Abuses of 2008,” yaf.org, December 2008.
29. “Red Cross Apologizes for Ban on Religious Speech,” Catalyst, April 2002.
30. Michael Zapler, “The Force Behind Kwanzaa,” Chronicle of Higher Education, December 14, 1994, p. A7.
31. “Majority OK with Public Nativity Scenes,” FoxNews.com (the results were from a Fox News poll), December 9, 2003.
32. Frank Rich, “I Saw Jackie Mason Kissing Santa Claus,” New York Times, December 25, 2005, Section 4, p. 8.
33. Adam Cohen, “This Season’s War Cry: Commercialize Christmas, or Else,” New York Times, December 4, Section 4, p. 11.
34. Irving Kristol, “On the Political Stupidity of Jews,” Azure, Autumn 1999.
35. Burt Prelutsky, “The Jewish Grinch Who Stole Christmas,” WorldNetDaily.com, December 7, 2005.
36. For a story and pictures of this event see the January-February 2006 Catalyst.
37. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “Merry Christmas is NOT Offensive—Jews Should Protect Religious Freedom for Everyone,” TowardTradition.org, November 21, 2005.
38. Jeff Jacoby, “De-Christmasing Christmas,” Boston.com, November 30, 2005.
39. “Celebrate Diversity: Celebrate Christmas,” New York Times, November 28, 2006, p. A23.
40. Don Feder, “Christmas—Going, Going… Gone?,” Grass topsUSA.com, November 30, 2005
.
41. “Many Americans Uneasy with Mix of Religion and Politics,” pewforum.org, August 24, 2006, p. 1.
42. “Survey: Americans Believe Religious Values Are ‘Under Attack,’” adl.org, November 14, 2008.
43. “New York City School System Discriminates Against Christians,” Catalyst, January-February 2002.
44. U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Skoros v. City of New York, CV-02-6439, February 18, 2004, p. 30.
45. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Skoros v. City of New York, 04-1229-cv, February 2, 2006.
46. See the amicus brief filed by the ADL in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Skoros v. City of New York, CV-04-1229, p. 9.
47. Interview of Deborah Lauter on Fox News Network, November 21, 2006.
48. “Central Michigan University Repeals Christmas Warnings,” Catalyst, January-February 2004.
49. “Indiana Law Professor Censors Christmas Tree,” Catalyst, January-February 2004.
50. “Anti-Christmas Fever Abounds,” Catholic League news release, December 14, 2006.
51. “Root Cause of the War on Christmas,” Catalyst, January-February 2009.
52. Ibid.
53. “How We Beat Wal-Mart,” Catalyst, December 2005.
54. “Victory Over Wal-Mart; All Demands Met,” Catalyst, December 2005.
55. “‘Merry Christmas’ Returns; Culture War Continues,” Catalyst, November 2006.
56. “Jesus’ Tomb Not Found; Cameron’s ‘Titanic Fraud,’” Catalyst, April 2007. See also “‘Lost Tomb’ Is a Lost Cause” in the same issue. For information on the Discovery Channel’s decision, see James Hibberd, “Is Discovery Burying ‘Lost Tomb’?,” tvweek.com, March 8, 2007.
Secular Sabotage Page 23