|
|
|
Conclusion Southern
Baptists have long been committed to religious liberty and the principle of
keeping the institutions of church and state separate.
But the BJC has gone far beyond “institutional” separation.
The reason the BJC has found allies in every far-left, anti-conservative
Christian organization in American politics is because the BJC supports
“ideological” separation, where the principles and values rooted in
Scripture are systematically extracted from all areas where government is
involved. The BJC’s close
relationship with leading humanists is rooted in its similar views of
“religious liberty” and church/state separation.
According to the Humanist Manifesto
II: “The separation of church and
state and the separation of [Christian] ideology and state are imperatives.
The state should encourage maximum freedom for different moral,
political, religious and social values in society.”
Though the BJC claims it does not support the separation of God from
government, that is exactly what the BJC and its allies on the left advocate.
That is what the “secular state” is all about.
Leading humanists have long understood that a “secular state” that
was ever expanding and that controlled a virtual monopoly in “secular,”
government education would eventually produce a “secular society.”
Thus, this is the reason for the major emphasis of the left on sustaining
a virtual monopoly in government education.
And this is the reason for the major emphasis of the left on using
“religious liberty” as the vehicle to completely secularize the educational
philosophy of the government schools. How
far America has come from the founding of Princeton in 1746 when it was
declared: “Cursed be all learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
And though an entire response to this aspect of the BJC could and should
be written, our BJC flyer did not deal with these issues. In
concluding this defense of our BJC flyer, I would like to reiterate one specific
point we made earlier: The BJC does not
say “we support abortion rights,” or “we support homo-sexuality,” or
“we favor the free flow of pornographic material,” or “we believe
taxpayers should be forced to fund
offensive ‘art’ that has even included the desecration of Jesus Christ.”
Instead, claiming to take “no position” on each of these issues, the
BJC simply claims to be a champion of religious liberty and church/state
separation. It just happens that
the BJC’s opposition to conservative Christians and conservative Christian
organizations is a necessary outgrowth of the BJC’s commitment to defend their
precious “wall of separation between church and state.
Such individuals and organizations are identified as the “Radical
Religious Right” because they “pose significant dangers to our churches, our
political system, and our American way of life.”
However, the very reason conservative Christians are identified by the
BJC and its allies on the far-left as the “Radical Religious Right” is
because of their strong stand against abortion, homosexuality, pornography and
taxpayer funded offensive “art.” One
of the most blatant examples of the BJC’s support and involvement in advancing
the agenda of the far-left is seen in its leadership role in the production of
the How to Win political training
manual.
(See section IX)
This manual reflects everything we at the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s
Association see as being wrong with the BJC.
Despite the How to Win
manual’s extreme pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-pornography and
pro-federal funding for the arts positions,
Mr. Tichenor justifies the BJC’s leadership role in the production of
the manual because the “radical right” represents a threat to religious
liberty and the “wall” of separation. For
Mr. Tichenor, fighting for religious liberty and church/state separation and
fighting against conservative Christians and conservative Christian
organizations are simply two sides of the same coin.
He states: “The
BJC entered into the [How to Win] coalition effort to produce the manual because
it believed that a document was needed to enable people to oppose the philosophy
of many on the radical right that would water down religious liberty and knock
down the wall of separation between church and state.”
For
the BJC and its numerous allies on the left, among the key organizations of the
Religious Right are Focus on the Family, Christian Coalition, American Family
Association and Traditional Values Coalition.
According to People for the American Way, whose president serves on the
board of the BJC, these four organizations represent “The Religious Right’s
Big Four.” To the BJC, these
groups, and numerous other conservative Christian organizations, are dangerous, extremists and
fanatics. In
recommending a book critical of such
conservative Christian leaders as James Dobson, Don Wildmon, Beverly LaHaye,
David Barton and others, BJC executive director James Dunn writes: “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.” Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, where James Dunn has served as a
trustee since the early 1980’s is equally hostile toward conservative
Christian leaders. Writing in a
1994 Americans United fundraising letter about the above mentioned “Religious
Right” leaders, AU executive director Barry Lynn states:
“The Religious Right must be stopped! And
the sooner the better – before they gain any more power.”
In a 1995 fundraising letter, Mr. Lynn writes about the Religious
Right’s assault on religious freedom: “…we need more funds … to expand
all our work to get more Americans involved in stopping the Religious Right
extremism that threatens everyone’s religious freedom.”
In a 1996 fundraising letter, Mr. Lynn notes that Americans United
continues to uncover
“dangerous, ‘stealth’ Religious Right groups like Focus on the Family and
the Promise Keepers.” In
the same letter, Mr. Lynn states: “Religious
Right outfits like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for
America, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, and
others continue to crank out hateful propaganda attacking the wall of separation
built by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
… It’s up to Americans
United to show our leaders that the agenda of the Religious Right isn’t
mainstream – it’s extreme.” According
to a May 30, 1995 statement published by Foy Valentine’s Center for Christian
Ethics, entitled “Countering the Radical Religious Right”: “We are alarmed because the
Radical Religious Right poses significant dangers to our churches, our political
system, and our American way of life.”
According to the statement: “… in sincere Christian love we are
compelled to take issue with the Radical Religious Right whose initiatives
disturb Christians and concerned citizens across the political spectrum.”
Valentine was president of Americans United when Barry Lynn was elected
to the position of executive director. Valentine
has also served as a board member of the BJC.
Those signing the anti-Religious Right statement included nine leaders
from the BJC, including BJC executive director James Dunn; nine leaders from
Americans United, including AU executive director Barry Lynn; and seven members
of the Coordinating Council of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, including CBF
coordinator Cecil Sherman and Dan Vestal, who would later take Sherman’s
place.
For
the Baptist Joint Committee, it is much easier to defend its opposition to the
“Radical Religious Right” than to defend its support for abortion rights,
homosexual behavior, the free-flow of pornography and federal funding for
offensive “art.” But no matter how they say it, it’s still just two ways
of saying the same thing. Indeed,
it is a distinction without a difference.
|