|
|
|
X.) BJCPA Executive Director Praises Book Condemning “Religious Right.” 1.
This
section of our BJC flyer is but one more example of the BJC’s systematic
condemnation of the “Religious Right,” while at the same time,
systematically aligning itself with the Religious/Political Left.
Certainly, the BJC’s disagreement with conservative Christian groups
over specific issues does not of itself make them “liberal.”
However, the issue we have raised is that of the BJC’s systematic
condemnation of conservative Christian organizations (the “Religious Right”)
in conjunction with its systematic support of the Religious/Political
Left. More specifically, the
BJC’s consistent opposition to the moral/social positions taken by
conservative Christian organizations in conjunction with its consistent support
of the positions taken by the Religious/Political Left speaks far more loudly
than its claim to take “no position” on the key moral/social issues of the
day. 2.
Under
the heading “The Religious Right,” the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which
published the book recommended by the BJC, provides a list of Religious Right
groups in its chapter outline. The entire list of Religious Right groups the ADL
book deals with in separate chapters are:
Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition; David
Barton’s Wallbuilders; James
Dobson’s Focus on the Family; Don
Wildmon’s American Family Association; Paul
Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation;
Robert Simonds’ Citizens for Excellence in Education;
Beverly LaHaye’s Concerned Women for America; Lou Sheldon’s
Traditional Values Coalition; Randall
Terry’s Operation Rescue; Jerry
Falwell and Phyllis Schlafly.
In praising the ADL book, Dunn writes about these organizations:
“…I’m convinced that good people of every spiritual hue, precisely for
their decency, cannot comprehend how profoundly outrageous the goals, evil the
methods and pervasive the influence of religio-political extremists.
Many see those so labeled as merely religious and political
conservatives. How dangerous our
naivete! How frightening our
ignorance! …[T]he Anti-Defamation
League has pulled together under one cover not only the facts but also the
feelings we know as we face these fanatics.” (Report from
the Capital, Sept. 20, 1994, p. 3)
3.
On
page 7 of the book, the phrase “Religious Right” is defined as: “an array
of politically conservative religious groups and individuals who are attempting
to influence public policy based on a shared cultural philosophy that is
antagonistic to pluralism and church/state separation.”
In other words, conservative Christians whose faith leads them to oppose
abortion as a constitutional “right,” homosexual behavior, the free flow of
pornography and federal funding for depraved “art,” are by virtue of their
faith a threat to church/state separation -- at least as the Left defines
church/state separation. Conservative
Christians are “antagonistic to pluralism” because their opposition to the
above mentioned moral issues is viewed as an assault on those whose
“religious” convictions allow for such things.
The kind of pluralism the Left desires is strictly a pluralism of the
Left. And though the Left demands
tolerance of its opponents, they seldom exercise it when it comes to the views
and values of conservative Christians. Let
us also be clear: Tolerance, a euphemism for compromise, is a requirement in the
advancement of evil. Righteousness
produces ill for no man. Evil has a
multitude of victims. Likewise,
wickedness can only appear in the fullness of its wickedness when
measured by the truth it violates. The
silence of God’s people is as essential to the rise and acceptance of evil as
the construction of “religious” arguments by those who advocate for social
acceptance of wickedness and evil.
4.
On
page ii, under the heading “Acknowledgments,” the ADL book thanked several
groups for their “generous assistance.”
Among those groups were; The Institute for First Amendment Studies; Americans
United; People for the American Way; and Project Tocsin. Each of these groups, including
the Anti-Defamation League themselves, were contributors to the How
to Win training manual. (See
section IX.) 5.
In
defense of the BJC’s praise and support for the Anti-Defamation League’s
book, Mr. Tichenor states: “The BJC is opposed to the religious right or any
other religio-political group that would diminish or attempt to deny religious
liberty and destroy the separation of church and state.”
But the question is, how does opposition to abortion rights, gay rights,
the free flow of pornography and federal funding for offensive “art”
infringe upon “religious liberty” or church/state separation?
Likewise, why are the efforts of conservative Christians to influence
legislation regarding abortion, homosexuality, pornography and the arts the very
basis of the Left’s portrayal of such American citizens as the “Radical
Religious Right?” America’s
extreme Left are among the strongest supporters of “religious liberty” and
church/state separation because it has proven to be the best possible vehicle
for advancing their far-left pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-pornography and
pro-federal funding for the arts agenda. Thus,
the BJC does not say it is fighting for
abortion rights, the normalization of homosexual behavior, the free-flow of
pornographic material or taxpayer’s money for morally offensive art.
Instead, the BJC claims it is fighting
against the “Radical Religious Right” because of their assault against
“religious liberty” and church/state separation. The problem arises, however, in how the BJC and its allies on
the Left define “religious liberty.” Indeed,
the conflict is not about support for religious freedom or even support for the
principle of keeping the institutions of church and state separate.
Most conservative Christians support freedom of religion and the
principle of keeping the institutions of church and state separate.
What we do not support is ideological separation -- the separation of God
from government. What we do not
support is the eradication of any acknowledgement of God by government and the
replacing our nations dependency upon God with dependency upon government.
The problem is found in what the BJC and its allies on the Left want the
“wall of separation between church and state” to accomplish.
6.
Tichenor
also ignores the section of our flyer regarding the mean-spiritedness of the BJC
toward those they disagree with. Here
also, the BJC has been critical of the Religious Right for being
“mean-spirited.” However, the
quotes provided on page 8 and the quote at the bottom of
page 11 of our BJC
flyer show clearly where the mean-spiritedness is coming from.
|