Attack of the Theocrats!: How the Religious Right Harms Us All—and What We Can Do About It

by Faircloth, Sean

  Madame Curie said, “I was taught that the way of progress is neither swift nor easy.” Praying for prosperity? Not enough. Relying on a preacher to pray for your success? That was not the Curie approach.

  Marie Curie, the first woman ever awarded a PhD in all of Europe, said, “I never see what has been done; I only see what remains to be done.”

  Curie also said, “Scientific work . . . must be done for itself, for the beauty of science. . . . then there is always the chance that a scientific discovery may become, like radium, a benefit for humanity.”

  This nonbeliever was a great believer in human collaboration and in science for the sake of science: “science has great beauty. A scientist in the laboratory is not only a technician [but] a child placed before natural phenomena which impress . . . like a fairy tale.” But this “fairy tale” does not reject inquiry. This great beauty encourages inquiry. Science welcomes skepticism—not gullibility.

  Marie Curie had a different philosophy than the “power of positive thinking” and its vapid intellectual descendant, the Prosperity Gospel. Curie sought to improve our shared world, not pretend the world is different from what evidence tells us it is. Curie said, “Life is not easy for any of us. . . . We must have perseverance. . . . We must believe that we are gifted for something and that this thing must be attained.” Curie’s focus was not on the temporary prosperity of acquiring things for herself—but on the greater goal of achieving progress for all.

  Now consider the second and only other person to have been awarded a Nobel Prize in two different fields: Linus Pauling. Aside from their two Nobel Prizes, Curie and Pauling shared something else in common: both rejected supernatural beliefs. This may seem like a coincidence, but in fact it’s typical among scientists. A recent survey by the National Academy of Sciences found that 79.0 percent of physical scientists identify themselves as atheist, and 76.3 percent do not believe in an afterlife. Like Curie, Pauling’s lack of religion seems to have enhanced his highly moral world-view. Linus Pauling thought the Golden Rule needed editing: “Do unto others 20 percent better than you would expect them to do unto you, to correct for subjective error.”

  Pauling’s first Nobel Prize was for his scientific research. Francis Crick called Pauling the “father of molecular biology,” stating that his work would “save lives for generations to come.” Pauling’s second Nobel Prize was for his efforts to promote peace through the banning of nuclear tests. By contrast President George W. Bush famously pointed to the Book of Revelations regarding his decision to invade Iraq. This biblically inspired war-mongering approach to conflict, seen frequently in modern fundamentalism, is by definition not one you will find among secularists, especially not among those who’ve won two Nobel Prizes.

  Linus Pauling earned a reputation for blunt straight talk. This noble American characteristic was shared by his more famous scientific colleague Thomas Edison—he of the phonograph, the light bulb, the motion picture camera, and the electric power plant—who said, “I never did a day’s work in my whole life. It was all fun.” Edison also said, “I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul. . . . No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong.”

  With his direct, plain-spoken pragmatism, Edison is a quintessentially American genius who transformed the uses of electricity. Edison is an intellectual descendent of that other American genius scientific tinkerer, Ben Franklin. Franklin is responsible for many of the basic discoveries and even terms that we still use today in discussing electricity, such as “positive” and “negative” and “electric motor.” Franklin said, “I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absented myself from Christian assemblies.”

  Franklin, Edison, and Pauling all spoke for a deep current in American thought that takes great joy in learning about our world as it is and working with others to improve it.

  Franklin was also deeply involved in politics. His religious skepticism was almost as strong as that of Jefferson. The Founders, while specifically prohibiting a religious test for office and specifically prohibiting establishment of religion, specifically encouraged scientific and artistic progress and patent innovation in the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

  Apple Computers and Apple Records vs. the Shiny Shyster Charlatans

  When faced with a challenging reality, it is not sufficient to merely emphasize changing your attitude so as to passively accept the reality, nor is it enough to pray. When faced with a challenging reality, we must actually do things to improve our world.

  Steve Jobs once said, “Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important thing I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life, because almost everything—all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure—these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.”

  When it comes to innovation, developing those tools and gadgets we all love to use, Jobs chooses to emulate none other than the Fab Four: “My model for business is the Beatles. They were four guys who kept each other’s negative tendencies in check. They balanced each other and the total was greater than the parts. And that’s how I see business. Great things in business are never done by one person, they are done by a team of people.” Thus, Mr. Jobs eloquently summarizes an essential aspect of the humanist ideal.

  The viewpoint that we work with our fellow human beings, and not in subservience to the supernatural, guides innovators like George Soros, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg. Unfortunately, America’s political life is no longer dominated by the likes of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and Kennedy.

  While demographics give me optimism that the Zuckerberg generation may lead us to a better future, there is an ominous disparity between the rationalism on the rise in our youth and the theocracy on the rise in our politics.

  As discussed, extreme fundamentalist sexual dogma is imposed in American law in ways that lead to the discrimination of sexual minorities, the treatment of women as second-class citizens, and the promotion of unscientific sexual propaganda that hurts public health and increases unplanned pregnancy. Meanwhile, many of the ministers who preach that very dogma live luxuriously—subsidized by our tax money with special tax exemptions offered to no one else and required nowhere in the Constitution.

  A for-profit business that actually creates something useful? No tax exemption for the housing expenses of its CEO—nor for any of his or her employees.

  A secular nonprofit that focuses not on proselytizing but on, say, helping poor children? No tax exemption for the housing expenses of its executive director, nor for any staff.

  A secular nonprofit that lobbies for the policy values of Secular Americans? Alas, no tax exemption for its executive director’s home either. And, in seriousness, there shouldn’t be such an exemption for anyone.

  We do not sufficiently reward or value innovation in America today. Instead, we reward the shiny shyster charlatan. America’s exceptional heritage is embodied by Franklin’s boundless curiosity, Edison’s endless tinkering, and Pauling’s meticulous analysis. Our government and our culture today devalue these great American virtues.

  In today’s American culture, people often ask, what would Jesus do? But let’s consider what Joel Osteen and his ilk actually do in the name of Jesus. Osteen asks for more money—right now—from parishioners with promises of wealth later in this life and salvation in the next. But the cash here and now helps promote products that benefit the wallet of . . . Joel Osteen. That’s what Osteen and his antecedents have always done. Now they play the game with a multimedia sound stage, a topnotch Web site, heavy book promotion, and glossy brochures, but snake oil is snake oil no matter how pretty the b
ottle.

  If innovation is the test, if facing difficult realities and making positive change is the test, we must remember that, all his marketing aside, Osteen’s level of productivity remains nil, zip. What new product has Osteen created? What scientific breakthrough has Osteen achieved? Joel Osteen talks of miracles—but what new medical miracle has he produced?

  Madame Curie? Ben Franklin? Thomas Edison? Linus Pauling? They faced the world as it is and used innovation and initiative to learn, to aspire, to collaborate, and to improve our shared human condition. The Osteens produce nothing.

  “Carryin’ Pictures of Chairman Mao”

  In 1994 we witnessed Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. In 1995 Gingrich imposed the little-noticed—but watershed—death of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). The OTA was strictly nonpartisan and issued accurate and technical reports on science and technology on which elected officials and the public could rely for objective analysis. This office had successfully saved taxpayers money through suggesting greater efficiency, including early use of electronic tax filing.

  The death of the OTA symbolizes the loss of scientific reasoning in American policy generally. We are no longer the America that challenges itself to go to the moon. We have not been inspired by great leaders who call us to sacrifice—and innovate—for the greater good.

  I kidded earlier about the C Street group and its tax-subsidized housing and sexual shenanigans, but the history of The Family runs deep and dark. The Family’s secretive leader, Doug Coe, positively compared Jesus’s teachings to the Red Guard during the Chinese Cultural Revolution: “I’ve seen pictures of young men in the Red Guard of China. . . . they would bring in this young man’s mother and father, lay her on the table with a basket on the end. . . . He would take an axe and cut her head off. . . . They have to put the purposes of the Red Guard ahead of the mother-father-brother-sister—their own life! That was a covenant. A pledge. That was what Jesus said.”

  Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family, documents Coe’s positive comparison of the special privilege of The Family with the powers of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. The powerful inner circle of The Family, it seems, is anointed by God to do far more than merely commit adultery; according to the ministry’s very theology, its elite has god-given license to do what would be immoral for others.

  America can clog its intellectual arteries with the greasy words of religious hucksters out to pick vulnerable pockets, so as to enrich their privileged, tax-subsidized lives—or it can inspire people to work together in the best interests of our country and fellow citizens. We may have reason, science, and youth on our side, but people of a secular bent make a mistake in underestimating the theocrats and hucksters. Religious extremists are diligent and, as we shall see in the next chapter, after many years of hard work, their ranks in the highest corridors of power are greater than at any time in U.S. history. Yet we still have the power to “imagine” a better world, then work for it.

  6 The Theocrats (aka the Fundamentalist Fifty)

  The first job we have as Americans is to reach out to everybody in the country who is not yet saved, and to help them understand the spiritual basis of a creator-endowed society.

  —Newt Gingrich

  I don’t have any respect for the Religious Right.

  —Barry Goldwater

  Do we have a theocracy in America? Not yet. But at no other time in American history have we had such a high percentage of theocratic members of Congress—people who expressly endorse religious bias in American law. Just as ominously, at no other time have religious fundamentalists effectively had veto power over one of the country’s two major political parties. The religious bias in numerous laws described in this book is not the result of a constitutional requirement. Far from it. These biased laws have been enacted despite our Constitution.

  There are only 535 members of Congress, and they make laws for the other 300 million of us. By definition, then, any single member of Congress holds huge power. To understand the scope of the overall threat posed by modern theocrats to the values of our Founders and our Constitution, let us look at the record and statements of the theocrats themselves.

  Many—indeed, most—of the 535 sitting members of Congress who vote consistently for theocratic policies will not be discussed in the pages that follow. Doing so would take a whole book in itself. Rather, the fifty members of Congress listed in this chapter are merely a representative sampling of those politicians who wear their theocratic bias on their sleeve—ones worthy of an award for their commitment to theocratic values. 91

  The separation of church and state is an issue that should transcend party—and it did in the past. Today we rarely find elected Republicans—politicians—who unequivocally support the separation of church and state. This was not the case forty years ago. The reality has changed. Most elected Republicans today would categorically reject the pungently stated sentiments of Barry Goldwater that introduce this chapter. For decades, Mr. Conservative embodied not merely Republican values but right-wing Republican values. The fact that Goldwater’s views would make him persona non grata in the Republican Party today can be interpreted in only one way: it marks a seismic shift toward theocracy within the Republican Party.

  Don’t believe me? Enjoy sampling these heroes of twenty-first-century American theocracy. We must make our fellow citizens aware of the extremism of these high-ranking elected officials. Some statements quoted here (if they weren’t coming from members of Congress) would be humorously loony. I think the Tinfoil Hat Award should go to Congressman Steve Pearce. But you may disagree. The competition is fierce, as you shall see. Many of the comments below relate to gay people, but this is because the issue of gay rights has gotten so much media attention that politicians are forced to reveal their attitudes toward the gay community—but their theocratic voting record extends far beyond any one issue.

  The theocratic award winners listed here are listed alphabetically. Enjoy dipping your toe in the pool of theocracy, the water’s warm, what with all the fire and brimstone underneath. Without further ado, I present the Fundamentalist Fifty Awards.

  Winner: The Michigan-Is-Very-Scary Award

  Congresswoman Sandy Adams (R-FL): Congresswoman Adams voted to enact burdensome waiting periods and tough parental notice laws for young women seeking abortions and voted to force women to have ultrasound tests before terminating a pregnancy. Congresswoman Adams opposes stem cell research and is proud that she “fought against this type of research funding in the Florida House of Representatives.” She opposes teaching evolution and has voted for teachers to “teach theories that contradict the theory of evolution.” She says that Christians should reject evolution in favor of “the biblical terms of how we came about.” When asked whether she believed in evolution, Adams replied, “I’m Christian. What else do you want to know?” Adams supports Florida’s unsuccessful private school vouchers program, including for religious schools, and wants to display the Ten Commandments in public schools. Congresswoman Adams claims, with no basis, that Islamic law (sharia) thrives in some towns in Michigan and may spread: “The Muslim extremist project is to create pockets and to grow their Muslim extreme philosophies, and if you look at some of our towns within our own borders, like Michigan, Michigan has cities that have a lot of Muslim influence and even so much as I would say some extremist Muslim influence because they are trying to operate under sharia law, not American law.”

  Winner: The Mamma-Grizzly Award

  Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH): Sarah Palin endorsed Ayotte, who agrees with Palin on women’s rights and gay rights. Senator Ayotte says same-sex couples shouldn’t be able to adopt.

  Winner: The Protect-Us-from-the-Evolutionist-Cult Award

  Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Constitutional Conservative Caucus and Tea Party Caucus Chair: Congresswoman Bachmann says believers in evolution represent a “cult following.” In the Minnesota Senate, Bachmann supported teaching creationism in public schools. Bachma
nn states her work to block LGBT rights “is a very serious matter, because it’s our children who are the prize for this community, they [gay people] are specifically targeting our children.” She spearheaded a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. She referred to homosexuality as “personal enslavement.” In Washington, Bachmann cosponsored a bill to give “14th Amendment protections to an embryo or fetus.” Speaking to a fundamentalist group, she prayed God would “expand this ministry beyond anything that the originators of this ministry could begin to think or imagine.” This fundamentalist group’s leader described the execution of gays as a “moral” act since “homosexuality is an abomination,” and later suggested that Muslim Americans and Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim, are planning on “overthrowing the United States Constitution” by “bring[ing] in Sharee [sic] law through the homosexual agenda.” Huh?

  Winner: The Caped-Crusader Award

  Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD):Congressman Bartlett carried Rev. Sung Myung Moon’s purple cape as Moon was literally crowned—yep, a religious leader crowned!—in a congressional building.

  Winner: The War-on-Christmas-Concocted-Issue Award

  Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO): Senator Blunt claimed, falsely, that the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would put people at legal risk if they have a Bible in their work cubicle. He has also voted for government-imposed school prayer.

  Winner: The William-Jennings-Bryan-Creationism-in-School Award

  Congressman John Boehner (R-OH), Speaker: In 2002, Congressman Boehner wrote the Ohio Board of Education urging the teaching of creationism in public schools. Boehner has voted to ban same-sex couples from adopting and to repeal domestic partnership laws, and supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Boehner has also voted against protecting reproductive health clinics and has backed laws compelling women and girls to go through biased “counseling” before terminating a pregnancy.