Speech to an interfaith meeting of churches/synagogues (2006)
"THE SINS OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT"
Robert P. Watson
I doubt very much if all of you – or any of you – are going to like what I am about to say. But a defining principle of religion is to find, embrace, and follow one's moral compass. This I have done and this I intend to do.
Before I begin my comments I have an admission to make: I wrote this speech in a moment of emotion a few days ago after hearing a politician and preacher standing together to cast what I felt to be false witness and moral hypocrisy. Now, I believe that any time a politician and preacher share the pulpit it invites problems, but more on that later. My admission is that, after pouring out my concerns on paper I decided NOT to let the cooler head of editing prevail. This may prove to be an unwise decision. We shall soon find out. But I believe the topic at hand - the relationship of church and state in the 2006 election - calls for some honest and serious dialogue. Here goes...
George W. Bush owes much of his political success to the support he receives from Christian evangelicals. In turn, the so-called "Religious Right" has the President to thank, in part, for their status as a power player in Washington .
Indeed, Bush and Republican leaders forged an unholy alliance between church and state built on promoting what they called a "values agenda" – namely (1) opposing abortion rights, gay marriage, divorce, and, most recently, stem cell research, and (2) advocating prayer in school as sort of a cure-all national elixir for what ails the body politic, replacing decades of sound policy. Do not misconstrue - while I favor using prayer to COMPLIMENT public policies and programs to support the needy, prayer should not REPLACE them. These two fronts of the values agenda have become the centerpiece of what the President and many evangelical leaders have described in the "talking points" they share as a "culture war."
But the same evangelicals who helped the President and his party to victory in 2000, 2002, and 2004 – early successes in their culture war – failed to deliver the 2006 election. While a disastrous real war (in Iraq and Afghanistan ) contributed to the Republican defeat and mounting dissatisfaction with the President, it is ironic that the very same "values" forces that had seemed to work so well for the President and his party ended up playing a role in their 2006 defeat. Let me explain.
Karl Rove, the chief architect of the "God Squad," still high off his string of electoral successes, chose in 2006 to drive his party to the radical fringe rather than positioning themselves squarely in the political center. Accordingly, exit polls indicated that turnout by evangelicals on Election Day was far below what was hoped for by Republicans. Several "moral" ballot initiatives failed – including the draconian initiative to effectively end abortions in South Dakota and the ugly fight to outlaw stem cell research in Missouri – and favorite sons of the Religious Right such as Senators Jim Talent in Missouri and Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania lost their bids for reelection.
So why did evangelicals leave Republicans standing at the alter on Election Day? Experts have suggested it was because President Bush and the Republican Congress failed to deliver on their promises to end abortion, stem cell research, and so on. As such, evangelical voters apparently felt abandoned and were not compelled to vote.
Well, maybe. But, looking back, I believe there were more profound factors underlying the politics of 2006 and the larger culture war.
While the President and his party were dividing the country by "governing" on fear, deceit, and distraction (demonizing the gay agenda and feminism, color-coded terror alerts, etc.) they engaged in a wave of heinous political scandals. From the theft and graft of Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, and Jack Abramoff, to the release of a CIA agent's identity as part of a political vendetta, to the failure to respond to hurricane victims in New Orleans – leaving our citizens to die – to Mark Foley's serial stalking of teenage boys in Congress's employ, to name but a few, the leadership of the Religious Right has been, arguably, among the most corrupt in American history.
Moreover, the utter hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing quite another caught up with the President and his supporters. A lesson of 2006 is that our leaders cannot profess, on one hand, to be moral and patriotic, yet do quite the opposite and expect to get away with it for long. Yes, we were initially bamboozled. Drunk from too much of Bush's 9/11 Koolaid. But, although it took a few years, the American public figured out the following in 2006:
I believe that words like "morals" and "values" are just that – words, unless backed by consistent behavior. If the experience of 2006 demonstrates nothing else, it highlights the need not simply for our leaders to be held to the same standard as the rest of us, but for them to be held to a higher standard.
Does the 2006 election signal an end to Bush's moral agenda, the power of the Religious Right, or the culture war bitterly dividing the country? No, but it does offer a lesson. The hype about a conservative religious revival in American politics must be understood within the context of American culture and against the reality of American history.
Among the most cherished of American ideals is our belief in the separation of church and state. This is still true. So too do religious Americans take to heart scripture that admonishes us to "judge not" and "to do unto others," or, across any faith, to forgive, to comfort the suffering, and to love one another.
Americans still have no patience with hypocrisy, especially when it comes from politicians and those casting the most judgment. When the Commander-in-Chief decries critics of his war as wanting to "cut and run," when that was precisely what he did during the Vietnam War, it smacks of the worst kind of hypocrisy. Yes, "blessed are the peacemakers."
I apologize if my anger and disappointment have come through. I am not as good as I wish to be. But I simply cannot believe that what passes for righteousness among the leaders of the Religious Right reflects the work of the Almighty.
