Basic HTML Version
sically, passing a Human Life
Amendment) in arder to end the
evil of abor tion.
O r take homosexual rights.
Many pol it icians favor laws that
would
force
a religious person for
whom homosexuality is an abomi–
nation (see Leviticus 18:22;
20:13) to hi re or rent to homosex–
uals. The acceptabi lity of homo–
sexuali ty has been aggressively
pushed on prime-time television,
and by television networks who
haven' t the foggiest abi li ty to
relate to people who take the
Bible seriously.
Then there's pornography. T be
Supreme Court has said that por–
nography can be banned if it "of–
fends" local community stan–
dards. This has allowed a number
of small communi t ies to rid them–
selves of the public d isplay of por–
nography. However, at the same
t ime, the Supreme Court decision
virtually insures that even the
grossest obscenities will be on
sale in large cities where the
"community standards" are j ust
about where they were in Sodom
and Gomorrah.
Hysterlcal Reactlon
Sorne of those of the opposite
political persuasion have attacked
these "conservative" Chris tians
wi th a shri ll vengeance.
J ames Dunn, a Southern Bap–
t ist official in Texas, denounced
the "evangelical right" as "unin–
formed, unrealistic, unfaithful to
t heir highest ideals, uncaring,
unbrotherly and untruthful."
Carl Henry, a respected evan–
gelical theologian, warned of the
"goose-step mental ity of a hand–
ful of vocal rel igious leaders."
A Jesuit magazine,
America,
called the platform of the Chris–
tian Right "moral fascism."
Jimmy All en, head of t he
S ou thern Bapt ist Radio/ T V
Commission (and active himself
in Jimmy Car ter's reelection
campaign) said Christian Right
leaders were guilty of "dishonesty
in oversimplification" about the
abortion issue.
Rabbi Alexander M . Schind–
ler, president of the Union of
American Hebrew Congrega–
t ions, declared that it was "no
28
coincidence that the rise of rigbt–
wing Christian fundamentalism
has been accompanied by the
most serious outbreak of anti–
Semitism in America since the
outbreak of World War
JI."
(lt
is
a litt le surprising the Rabbi
should make such a statement–
these groups are among the most
enthusiastic supporters of Israel
you wi ll find among non-J ewish
American voters anywhere!)
And the Los Angeles
Times
ran an article from one of their
staff writers warning of book cen–
sorship i n the wake of the
November elections. Prompted,
we were asked to believe, by con–
servative fundamentalist minis–
ters.
Norman Lear, the prominent
television producer, who gave the
American public "Maude" and
"Mary Hartman, Mary Hart–
man" (hardly "profamily" shows)
organized his own media cam–
paign to warn that the Christian
Right represen ted a threat to
American democracy and the
"American way."
The big worry, of course, is the
mixing of church and state. T he
American press has fed this wor–
ry over the last year by calling the
s u ppor ters o f the Ayatolla h
Khomeini in lran "Moslem fun–
damentalists." The point is to link
the Christian R ight- made up
largely of Christian "fundamen–
talists"- to the practices of
Khomeini 's regime. The press is
thereby subtly propagandizing
that if the Moral Majority got its
way, the U ni ted States would
resemble Khomeini's Jran.
In act uali ty, if the Moral
Majority and like groups got their
way, the laws on the books would
merely return to something like
what they were in the 1950s–
when America was probably a
freer society in many ways than it
is today. The United States was
hardly like the Ayatollah's Iran in
the 1950s when it had stronger
laws against abort ion and pornog–
raphy, and it permitted prayer in
schools.
Old-Fashloned Hypocrlsy
Much of the outcry over the
Moral Majority and like groups
is plain old hypocrisy. Remem–
ber the 1960s? Remember all
the prominen t clergymen who
got involved in political causes–
like opposing the Vietnam War
or working to increase welfare:
W illiam Sloan Coffin, the Berri–
gan brothers, J ames Groppi–
these men of the cloth were not
at all bashful about supporting
liberal political causes. Indeed–
you don't even have to go back
to the 1960s- Andrew Young,
the former U.S. Ambassador to
the UN who called the Ayatol–
lah Khomeini a "saint' ' and said
tbe Cubans were a "stabilizing"
force in A frica, is a minister.
Where were all the concerned
voices of protest about breaching
the wall of church and s tate
when they were advocating their
causes?
The Nat ional Council of
Churches issued, in the wake of
the e lection, a hig h-sounding
statement saying it is "wrong for
any religious group ... to seek to
C hristian ize government.
It
is
arrogant to asser t that one's posi–
tion on a political issue is Chris–
tian and all others are unChris–
tian. "
(The Nat ional Council of
Churches, incidentally, has fun–
neled money to revolutionaries
under the guise of fighting "ra–
cism.")
For years, religious groups
have used their religious creden–
tials to push causes like disarma–
ment, higher taxes and more wel–
fare, and harsh campaigns against
South Africa (but never, ever the
Soviet Union).
Now that sorne religious lead–
ers are pushing other causes,
there are hysterical shrieks about
"goose-stepping," "fascism," and
"book-bu rning," all to imply that
t he Moral Majority a nd like
groups are sorne variety of Naz–
ism.
lf
the Christian Right may
pose a possible danger, it is in an
area largely overlooked by the
left-leaning critics. Whi le there is
a smattering of J ews, the Chris–
t ian Righ t is made up almost
completely of Sunday-keeping
churches.
It
would be a tragedy if
the Moral Majority- which has
The
PLAIN TRUTH