Expiration Date for Right Wing Religious Gruel

Ever since the Democrats swept back into control of Congress after the 2006 elections, pundits across the country have been confidently predicting the demise of the Evangelical Christian Right as a political force in America. Me, I need a little more convincing. Every time I hear someone say that Right Wing Christianity is toast, I think back to the horror movies I used to watch when I was a kid. The monster/creature/killer was supposedly dispatched, the weary and terrified protagonists breathe a sigh of relief and wipe the sweat from their brows, and just when I'd let my own guard down, BAM, the monster/creature/killer would lurch back to life to take down yet another victim. I ain't about to let down my guard when it comes to Right Wing Evangelicals, assurances of their demise notwithstanding.

Then again... maybe it is twilight hour for the "Religious" Right. I mean, it's one thing when the shaggy, wild-eyed radical hippie members of the MSM say so, but it is quite another when actual Evangelical Christians publish a document that basically says, hey, we've been exploiting our Christian faith and using it as an excuse to act like narrow-minded assholes for years and years. And this is advancing Christianity how?


I'm referring, of course, to the Evangelical Manifesto, a document that was published this past May and which dares to call out members of the faithful on both the Right and the Left for politicizing religion. To wit:

The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, Christians become the “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology. Christian beliefs become the weapons of political factions. Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, economic system, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, or nationality. The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness (emphasis added).

OK, so it's one thing for the Conservative hijacking of Christianity to have run its course. However, it also appears as though Progressive Evangelicals have literally been waiting in the wings for this moment and are poised to retake the good name of their Christian faith and remake American Evangelical Christianity as a force for positive social change. Just ask Amy Sullivan, proud Evangelical Christian and contributing editor for The Washington Monthly:

"Not long after the 2004 election, a congressional aide identified himself as an evangelical during a public Q&A. He told me afterward that it was the first time he'd 'outed' himself in front of fellow Democrats. 'How did it feel?' I asked. He paused. 'A little scary,' he said. 'But good.' Now he's one of a growing class of consultants who advise Democratic candidates about how to court religious voters."

I am not here to dance on the grave of any one's right to the public expression of religious faith, or to say that religious beliefs do not/should not play an important role in informing the values and convictions of those who profess them. I AM here to rejoice in the demise of a movement that is not religious, but which represents a co-opting of the language and trappings of religion to advance a narrow, plutocratic, anti-democratic agenda. Specifically, the Gospel message of Jesus Christ has never been visible to me in the words and actions of people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others who have amassed power and wealth by exploiting the name of the man whom they claim to worship. Not that there aren't people on the Left who exploit the political process for their own ends, but at least they typically don't claim to do so in the name of Jesus. It goes without saying that there is a place for religious faith in American society- authentic religious faith. Dobson, Falwell, et al. had their day in the sun on Jesus' dime. It's time for the social justice, preferential option for the poor Gospel to displace the "prosperity gospel," and for progressive Christians to retake the good name of the faith that they hold dear. Shalom.

- Doug L.

George W. Bush vs. Jesus of Nazareth



FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Evangelical Manifesto

Dobson Rails Against Fruitcake Constitution (Wonkette.com, June 24,2008)

Murky Manifesto: Evangelical Statement Repudiates Theocracy- Sort Of, by Joseph L. Conn (Americans United for Separation of Church and State, May 7, 2008)

Why The "Evangelical Manifesto" Wasn't Written For You - & Why That Means You Should Read It, by Pastor Dan Schulz (StreetProphets.com, May 7, 2008)

When Would Jesus Bolt?, by Amy Sullivan (The Washington Monthly, April 2006)

How Would Jesus Vote? (I'm an Evangelical--And a Liberal. Really.) by Amy Sullivan. (The Washington Post, February 24, 2008)

Progressive Evangelicals Look to Reshape Political Image (ChristianPost.com, March 28, 2008)

Ascension: Amy Sullivan says that the era of the religious left has begun, by Paul Baumann (The Washington Monthly, January - March 2008)

Jesus: The Guantanamo Years (ReligiousRight.com, July 24, 2007)

Left Behind: The Right Loves the Poor Until They're Born (Wonkette.com, December 14, 2005)

Rudy Giuliani for Prez? Don't Hold Your Breath

What kind of Catholic is Rudy Giuliani? The rare kind who apparently believes that as an anti-government insurrectionist, Jesus Christ should not only have been flogged and crucified, but waterboarded as well.

Now, of course, if you were to ever ask Rudy if Jesus Christ should have been waterborded by the Romans, he would likely give you his patented Giuliani contemptuous response, making reference to how he is a life-long Catholic, Jesus is more important to him than any of his wives, past present and future, yadda, yadda, yadda. Fair enough. BUT, put Rudy in the shoes of Pontius Pilate, and you'd likely see Jesus strapped to the water board on His way to the whipping post, and finally the cross.

What do I base any of this on? Why, Rudy's own comments on the subject. This past week, asked to define whether or not waterboarding amounts to torture, Rudy bravely equivocated, stating, "It depends on how it's done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it." So, based upon Rudy's worldview of who the good guys and bad guys are (United States= Good, "Islamofacists" and Enemy Combatants= Bad), waterboarding might be fine. For example, if it's done by Americans in the name of the War on Terror, or by Roman Centurions who are "interrogating" the alleged leader of an anti-government insurrection movement. Rudy didn't just equivocate as to the question of who, he even said that it depends on HOW waterboarding is done before you can classify it as torture. So, just to clarify things for Hizzoner: the circumstances of why, where and to whom waterboarding is done may vary on a case-by-case basis, but the how never does. I refer you to the easy-to-read illustrated chart (above) provided free of charge. Please memorize its contents so that you never have to give such a lame and evasive answer to such an elementary question ever again.

Rudy's comment about how whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture "depends upon who does it" is at least consistent with his overall selective approach to personal morality and accountability. For example, as a former federal prosecutor it is hard to fathom that Rudy has any sympathy for criminals as lowly as pedophiles. True in general, except for when it comes to Monsignor Alan J. Placa, his special priest friend of over thirty years. Never mind that the Catholic Church has ordered Monsignor Placa to cease performing his priestly duties while the molestation charges against him are under investigation. His personal loyalty to Rudy means that even though his high-profile gig with the Church is on hold, there is always a place for him at Giuliani Partners. It sounds like a really plum job, but what about his vow of poverty? Then again, if he couldn't keep his vow of celibacy...

With regard to the charges facing, and his own association with Fr. Placa, Rudy had this to say: "We give some of the worst people in our society presumption of innocence and the benefit of the doubt." Sure, Rudy. If they are Catholic priests who molest kids, absolutely, right? "Enemy Combatants" held indefinitely without charge at Gitmo? Fuggedaboutit.

So here we have a Catholic candidate for the Republican presidential nomination who:

• Supports gay rights;

• Is pro-choice;

• Is in favor of interrogation techniques that constitute torture; and

• Sees nothing wrong with his continued association with an accused pedophile who has been suspended by the Church until further notice.

Which brings me to the American Catholic Church. Of the four policy positions listed above, I actually happen to share the first two with Rudy. I also happen to know that the Catholic Church shares none of these. Even so, of the four of these, which position of Giuliani's has him in hot holy water with at least one American Catholic bishop? You guessed it: he is pro-choice. I point this out not to argue whether or not one position or the other is right or wrong. I point it out to ask: is this how narrow the agenda of the American Catholic Church has become, that it will only rouse itself to publicly speak out about a political candidate's position on abortion while ignoring his position on torture? Wasn't Jesus Christ a victim of state-sponsored torture? Why in God's name isn't there any official condemnation of Giuliani's pro-torture stance on the part of the Church? Is the Church's pro-life agenda limited purely to being anti-abortion? Is serving as a vehicle for the conservative political agenda now as, or more, important than preaching and living the Gospel? Or have some conservative Catholic leaders managed to conflate the two?

Some American Catholic leaders may apply the term pro-life more liberally than others, but the fact is that the conservative movement has grown in strength within both the Catholic clergy as well as the laity. Over the past twenty-to-thirty years, conservative Catholics have mobilized into a highly influential voting bloc, and are also counted among those who shape as well as make public policy. Five of the 9 members of the U.S. Supreme Court are now Roman Catholic. The bishop of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC presides over the annual Red Mass to inaugurate each new Supreme Court session. Conservative Catholic publications such as First Things and Crisis are highly influential voices, both in official Washington and across the country. Why, with American Catholics enjoying such prominent positions of power and influence, it is hard to fathom why some of their brethren continue to conduct themselves like minority members of the lunatic fringe with a persecution complex.

This is all to ask, what happened to my Church? The Church of my youth thundered against the immorality of funding a nuclear arms race at the expense of impoverished children and families. The Church of my youth boldly asserted that the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims a preferential option for the poor, a summons to all people to treat the needs and concerns of the poor as their own. And now? When it isn't liquidating diocesan assets in order to pay for sex abuse settlements, its bishops limit their moral outrage to publicly inveighing against pro-choice politicians and threatening to withhold communion. I haven't heard of any such threat regarding Giuliani's position on torture, or even his support for the Iraq War which the American bishops opposed.

And so, shameless, mendacious politicians like Rudy Giuliani can crow about the merits of torture, equivocate about what actually constitutes torture, and the most the American Catholic Church does in response is to condemn his tacit support for a woman's Constitutionally-protected right to have an abortion. How so truly sad I am, for my Church and for my country. In recent memory, the American Catholic Church was a voice of moral authority on a broad range of social and moral issues, and was beholden to no party or politician. Nowadays, official Church teaching often seems to resemble a dogma chasing its own infallible tail. At a time in our history when true moral authority is sorely needed from both our religious and political leaders, it is found to be grievously lacking in both.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, November 3,2007):

"Let's drink some Mountain Dew and go waterboarding!" (Jon Stewart, Comedy Central's The Daily Show, November 1, 2007)

Rudy's BFF: Fr. Placa, or "Priest F"


Voice of the Faithful

What is the Red Mass (History News Network, October 4, 2005)

NY Times, AP reported Donohue's criticism of Edwards campaign bloggers -- but ignored Donohue's own controversial comments and inconsistent outrage (MediaMatters.org, February 7, 2007)

"Rudy Awakening." (WashingtonMonthly.com, October 24, 2007)

"Rudy on Waterbording." (WashingtonMonthly.com, October 25, 2007)

"Ex-Partner of Giuliani May Face Charge." (Washington Post, March 31, 2007)

"Neocon Catholic leaders nurtured by GOP and Conservative Philanthropy on their heels", by Bill Berkowitz (MediaTransparency.org, September 23, 2007)

CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described (ABCNews.go.com, November 18, 2005)

Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, October 2003)

In Brazil, Pope to Face A Church Losing Hold (Washington Post, May 9, 2007)

Instruction on Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation", by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 1984

Liberation Theology.org

Just Peace.org: Seven Sermons of Oscar Romero for Lent