Notes Introduction 1 Since I am using the terms “left,” “right,” “religious right,” “secular left,” and so on rather loosely, I have decided not to capitalize these terms as I am not speaking of individuals who are formal members of a particular political group. For example, though certain figures are understood to be aligned with the “religious right” they may not self-identify with that label. Nonetheless, these terms are functional political terms used in the rhetoric surrounding this issue. For more on this, see page 10–11. 2 Even though Alan Wolfe was not convinced that Middle America was divided into two hostile camps, he did worry that the extremists on the right and the left “ . will make us two nations in spite of ourselves” (319–320). 3 This project is limited to the United States, but inGod Is Back, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge argue that the culture war model has been exported to the rest of the world, so that foreign nations have debates that are as divided over the issues of gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion as in the United States (327–337). 4 Unfortunately, Neiwert’s book participates in the very strategy it seems to be criticizing, by demonizing the right. 5 In her book Slander, Ann Coulter dismisses claims that there is a “religious right,” and she believes the term was invented by the political left and the leftist media to credit conservative beliefs in a negative light. According to Coulter, the “religious right” is meant to evoke notions of irrationality, inflexibility, simple mindedness, and being overly judgmental (168). 163 164 Notes 6 Often, fundamentalist Christians and evangelical Christians are conflated, but there are significant differences between the two groups. Fundamentalist Christians tend to read the Bible literally, while evangelicals are more concerned with the conversion experience of being “born-again” (Lienesch). 7 Whether it be law, political science, philosophy, history, sociology, rhetoric and communication, or religious studies, there is a great deal of effort to address these issues. Unfortunately, there is little literature that examines religion and politics in the United States across disciplines, and part of the purpose of this book is to provide a space for some of that discussion to occur. That said, the book falls within the humanities, and is not part of social science. Partly, this has to do with my own training, but mostly, it is because the book concerns ideas and how they influence what we do. Therefore, I do not intend to show the literal status of the political realm through extensive use of data and surveys, but rather, to discuss the ideas and philosophy behind what the most visible pundits are arguing about. 1 Christian Conservatives and the War against Secular Humanism 1 The other two groups were Christian Voice and Religious Roundtable. 2 Tea party politics are usually Libertarian and antigovernment, but there is also some evidence that many are socially conservative. A Pew Forum survey entitled “The Tea Party and Religion” suggests that 42% of Tea Party members agree with the conservative Christian movement (“Tea Party”). Many Christian conservatives have spoken to the Tea Party and figures like Sarah Palin are certainly courting them. 3 Tea Party conservatives agree with this point, as evidenced by their interest in reading some the text of the Constitution on the floor of the House at the start of the 2011 Congressional season. 4 It should be noted that outside of these pundit’s positions, some Christians with conservative leanings have disparate views concerning ideas like a “Christian Nation.” Academic and sociologist Christian Smith interviewed many everyday evangelical Christians from 1995–1997 concerning what the phrase “Christian America” means to them, and six meanings emerged from his interviews that are listed according to frequency. It is important to note that fundamentalist Christians and other types of religious conservatives were not included in this study. First, to some evangelicals “Christian America” meant that there is religious freedom in America and that the United States was founded by persons seeking the freedom to practice their religion. Others stated that it meant that Christians were the religious majority in America during its inception. Some, like many of the religious advocates already Notes 165 discussed, thought it meant the principles of American government are based on Christian beliefs. Others contended that the concept involved the religious memberships of the Founding Fathers and that fact that the Founding Fathers believed in God. Still others noted that it referred to the Christian principles and values that affected an earlier era of American history. Finally, evangelicals claimed that it meant that the public expression of Christianity was permissible in the United States (C. Smith 26–37). 5 The fact that the Pilgrims did not believe in religious freedom and ran their colonies with brutal punishments for those who disobeyed the Puritan Church is never discussed. 6 In addition to having a Christian origin, many religious advocates believe that America has a unique connection to God known as “American exceptionalism.” American exceptionalism refers to the notion that God has a special relationship with the citizens of the United States. There is considerable debate about this position, but Jerry Falwell claims that America is the greatest nation on earth and states that he believes “ . God promoted America to greatness no other nation has ever enjoyed because her heritage is one of a republic governed by laws predicated on the Bible” (Listen 16). Some Christian conservatives agree with this view and believe that the United States is favored over other nations by God. 7 O’Reilly contrasts the Judeo-Christian philosophy as being more secular and appropriate for the founding of the country than a specificreligion . For O’Reilly, the Founders were aware of the need to support nonestablishment and freedom of religion and so did not favor a particular sect, but also understood that founding laws on the 10 commandments was necessary to maintain civil and moral order (Who’s 118). 8 In contradiction to this point, David Niven has shown through media analysis that there is not a liberal bias in the media, but comparable coverage between democratic and republican presidents, governors, mayors, and members of congress. Nonetheless, the false perception of “liberal” media bias continues to inform perceptions of reality (115–127). 9 It is often noted by Christian conservatives that Hugo Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. 10 Interestingly, in Neuhaus’s second edition of The Naked Public Square, Neuhaus criticizes politicized fundamentalism on theological grounds. He believes that politicized fundamentals have discredited religion by failing to discuss issues of religion and politics in more civil ways and with less presumption concerning the true meaning of the Bible (19). 11 Frank Schaeffer Jr., son of the evangelist Francis Schaeffer who inspired so many of the views of the religious right, has written a book that recants some of his previous conservative Christian views and throws into question his father’s actual views. Schaeffer Jr. declares that “Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, 166 Notes and others would later use their power in ways that would have made my father throw up” (299). He claims that his father got sick of “these idiots,” as he often called people like Dobson in private. They were “plastic,” Dad said, and “power-hungry” (300). They were “Way too right-wing, really nuts!” and “They’re using our issue to build their empires”(300). 12 For this reason, Ruth Murray Brown asserts that an understanding of Francis Schaeffer’s works is essential for understanding the doctrines of the religious right in the twenty-first century (222–223). 13 John W. Whitehead distinguishes between early Christian humanism, from Erasmus and Catholics who were critical of the Church, and the later more modern version of humanism. Whitehead believes that Martin Luther and Protestants generally were critics of the earlier form of humanism because it tended to reject humanity’s fallen status as sinners. For Whitehead, humanism often seems innocuous, but “ . invariably ends in the deification of man and rejection of God” (Second 38). 14 Similarly, Sean Hannity agrees that this is a “ . center-right nation,” and therefore, active participation of conservatives will result in a conservative victory on key political issues (Conservative 7). 15 There are many inconsistencies throughout Pat Robertson’s views, particularly when he speaks live. Often he seems to be against separation of church and state, but usually, it seems that he is merely being imprecise in his language and he does accept nonestablishment, but rejects strict separation of church and state. 2 The Secular Left: “Reason,” Religion, and the Threat of Theocracy 1 Putnam and Campbell note there is a grace gap as well. The increased regularity in which someone says grace before eating means that one is more likely to be Republican. 2 President Carter was a Southern Baptist while in office and a “born again” Christian who regularly taught Sunday school during his presidency (Hutchison 3). 3 This includes many different Christian denominations. 4 Gary Scott Smith agrees that the presidents with the highest personal integrity are often viewed as the least effective, like John Quincy Adams, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter (428). 5 For Balmer, it is also problematic that certain presidents are elected primarily in moral contrast to their predecessors. Jimmy Carter was elected as a person of superior morals in contrast to Nixon, but ultimately regarded as an ineffective leader (BalmerGod , 159). George W. Bush presented himself as Notes 167 having superior morals to Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky affair, but presided over the use of torture and promoted a war on faulty grounds.