Many of Us Don't Know the Real Nature of the Beast
It is time for all of us on the Left, secular as well as religious, to do a gut check. Let us ask ourselves; do we really understand the Religious Right? Do we really understand what it will take to stand up to them? Most of all, do we know how to effectively communicate the nature of the danger their politically active members pose to our liberal democracy?
Unfortunately. I believe that many of us truly do not understand the nature of the beast.
Friends, if we want to protect, let alone extend our freedom to believe and dissent, be prepared for a life-long struggle. This confrontation will last the rest of our lives, as well for generations to come. The Religious Right is not going to go away: they have a lot of dedicated foot soldiers and extremely wealthy foundations to fund their efforts. Whether we like it our not, those of us who are dedicated to preserving the separation of church and state are in for a Cold War-style lengthy confrontation.
Talk to Action’s Frederick Clarkson believes that many of us on our side do not understand the magnitude of battle we are engaged in. He is correct. Fred accurately describes the Religious Right as “the elephant at the table.� Yet when we get together to discuss achieving victory at the ballot box we don’t make the elephant the heart of the discussion. Too many of us on the Left readily believe that if the Democrats simply get control of both Congress and the White House within the next four years the war will be won. In reality, only battles will have been decided, not the outcome of the conflict.
But we can learn to contain our opponents. And to effectively do so we must get it across to our fellow citizens what is at stake: the loss of sacrificed-for freedoms as well as potential civil unrest. Think about a scenario where if Dominionist-Recunstructionist Evangelicals and ultra-Orthodox Catholics were able to jointly recast society in their images. Wouldn’t the two sides soon be at each other’s throats in a nasty fight to determine whether American society will follow a Catholic or Protestant theocracy?
This is precisely what our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid: the religious civil wars of seventeenth century Europe. The wall separating church and state enables the healthy practice of faith rather than stifling it. But beyond that it is there to ensure domestic tranquility. Let’s not shrink away from stating this core argument. More importantly, let’s be blunt about it.
In aforementioned Talk to Action post, Frederick Clarkson adroitly observed of the many occasions we liberals pow-wow, “…there are also conferences this summer to discuss politics and important issues of the day as we head into the drama of the mid-term elections. But amidst all of the turmoil of the changing political landscape and fascinating advances in communications technology -- one thing remains largely unchanged: When organizations get together, one subject that is rarely on the agenda is the religious right and what to do about it.(i) �
Yes, many of us are aware in a general sense that we do not like what the Religious Right stands for. But are we disciplined enough to effectively discuss how society would be altered were they to triumph? Have we yet succeeded in framing a way to discuss their theocratic agenda so that the average American, that vital mainstream voter understands what drives our advocacy?
Again, as Frederick Clarkson notes, “In order to have coherent conversations about the religious right -- just as with any subject -- it helps to have some kind of common set of knowledge, an agreed upon set of terms, and the capacity to develop deeper understandings that can inform our evolving understanding of the dynamics of political life.�(ii)
There is work to be done. And if we are going to protect the rights that Americans have paid for in blood from Yorktown to Little Round Top to Selma, then let’s make the elephant topic “A� of our discussions.
Notes:
(i)Don't Think of the Elephant on the Table, Link: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/20/221758/110
(ii)Ibid.
- NYGaribaldi's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Containing the Beast
Perhaps one of the most important things we can do to contain the Religious Right is explain precisely what its various factions mean when they use the term "the truth."
The Religious Right uses this term with exactness when they talk among themselves, and for them it has a very narrow, subjectice meaning--theocracy. The only differences that exist among the various part of the Religious Right is whether it is Protestant Domionist/Resconstructionist "truth" or a Catholic Opus Dei-Holy Family "truth." And there is yet a "Theocon" truth.
What really matters though, is that all of these "truths" are deliberately projected in an ambiguous fashion at the mainstream voter. In the intended target's mind that version of the truth will still be denominationally subjective. The trick is for us to get people to talk out in the open about what "the truth" means to each and every citizen. At that point disagreements will become apparant. That is when the more decent folks will understand why it makes more sense to seperate church and state.
Here is what I mean. As a Catholic I oppose prayer in public school because the issue will eventually arise, whose prayers do we use? If I were to live inthe South, would my children then be forced to recite an Evangelical prayer every morning?
And may God help us if we get to the point where the various factions of the Religious Right have succeeded in attaining their common agenda. That is when they will turn on each other or worse, when American will turn on American over the issue of whose subjective truth will be imposed on society as "the" objective truth.