|
I ran across this report while doing a little research on the ADL.
from The Christian Coalition
"The Anti-Defamation League has committed defamation. There is no
other conclusion to be reached after reading its new report, The
Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America. It
is sad that an organization with a proud history of fairness should have
descended to this kind of character assassination and name calling."
- Columnist Mona Charen (1)
"In my twelve Senate years I worked with many of the 'Religious Right.'
They were active in the cause of Soviet Jewry (many Pentecostals and
other Christians couldn't leave the Soviet Union either). They were
fervent supporters of the State of Israel and we worked together often.
Among the leadership of Conservative Christians I never experienced
even a hint of anti-Semitism. Indeed, it was quite the opposite-I am
Honorary Vice-Chairman of the ADL. I am proud of that-But in this
instance I strongly disagree. From all my experience I know their report
to be ill-founded. Regretably it will do more harm than good."
- Former U.S. Senator Rudy Boschwitz, Honorary Vice-Chairman,
ADL (2)
Introduction
On June 9, 1994, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, an
organization created to fight defamation, released a report that alleges -
with shoddy research and threadbare scholarship - that politically active
people of faith pose a threat to the survival of American constitutional
democracy. The ADL accuses numerous religious conservative
organizations and leaders of anti-Semitism and bigotry. In so doing, the
ADL itself has committed defamation. The ADL's new definition of
"intolerance" apparently is disagreement with its liberal politics.
The ADL report is filled with fabrications, half-truths, innuendo and
guilt by association that are reminiscent of the political style practiced by
Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.
Persons of impeccable character and reputation are smeared for dubious
reasons or for no reason at all. This style of politics is beneath the dignity
of any organization that claims to be dedicated to fighting bigotry.
The response to the ADL report has been dismay from Jews and
Christians alike. "Politically active Christians, the ADL concludes,
are-well, 'extremist,' 'bogus,' 'conspiratorial,' 'fevered,' 'phony,'...and
yes, 'fervent.' Protestant evangelicals are simply de trop, an object of
condescension and prejudice," observed William Kristol, former chief of
staff to Vice President Dan Quayle. (3)
Columnist Don Feder of the Boston Herald calls the report "an
attempted political assassination." Feder adds, "Instead of debating the
issues like a gentleman, it stoops to implications of anti-Semitism to
discredit a legitimate voice in the values debate." (4)
Beth Gilinsky of the Jewish Action Alliance calls the ADL report "a
plainly partisan smear campaign against traditional Christians who
energetically - and quite legitimately - advocate what they believe are
important moral and social values." She concludes that although
"Jewish-Christian friendship will survive the onslaught from the ADL,
we are getting rather tired sweeping up after repeated ADL fiascos." (5)
This report specifically addresses those portions of the ADL document
concerning the Christian Coalition. First, we will briefly examine the
shoddy nature of the ADL's pseudo-research, and the report's heavy
reliance on sources of questionable veracity. Second, we will discuss how
the Christian Coalition really operates and discuss our true agenda of
pluralistic democracy, nonpartisanship and inclusion. We also will
discuss in detail the Coalition's nonpartisan voter guides and
organizational structure and purposes.
The ADL's Pseudo-Research
The ADL claims its report was the culmination of nine months of
research, but it bears none of the signs of a serious research report. It is
virtually devoid of specific references to resource materials. (6) The
reader is left to simply take it on faith that the ADL's most damning
charges are true, which they are not. In fact, much of the ADL's report
is simply a retread of materials (some over a decade old) from groups like
People for the American Way, Americans United for the Separation of
Church and State, the Institute for First Amendment Studies and other
groups that long have had political axes to grind against religious
conservatives. (7) Most disturbing, the ADL never contacted the
Christian Coalition to get its response to their unfounded charges, nor
did the ADL try to ascertain the accuracy of many of the quotations
used in their report. This is particularly disturbing considering the fact
that many of the groups and persons attacked have been longstanding
friends of the Jewish community, the State of Israel and the ADL.
In 1993, in seeking to settle charges that it had violated the privacy of
certain individuals, the ADL sought to avoid legal liability by claiming
that it enjoyed "journalistic status," making it "similar to any newspaper,
magazine, or television station." (8) If so, then the ADL has violated even
the most basic principles of ethical journalism.
Had the Christian Coalition or its leadership been contacted for
clarification, many of the errors in the report would have been corrected.
Instead, the report is filled with gross inaccuracies of fact. Quotations are
listed without attribution, while others are listed (incredibly) as coming
from the "library of People for the American Way." A quotation from
Pat Robertson on church-state separation has no source listed at all. (9)
Of 28 quotations attributed to Paul Weyrich, founder of the
Washington-based Free Congress Foundation, 22 have no source for the
quote. (10)
Numerous Factual Errors
Basic biographical errors abound. For instance, the ADL report says that
Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed, Jr. once worked as a
"campaign staffer for Georgia Rep. Newt Gingrich, former Georgia State
Sen. Mack Mattingly and Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina." (11)
Reed never has been employed on the campaign staffs of any of these
individuals. He never was employed by Rep. Newt Gingrich in any
capacity. He worked for Students For America, an independent
organization, during the 1984 Senate race in North Carolina. He has
never been employed by Senator Jesse Helms. He served as an intern for
Mack Mattingly in the U.S. Senate in the summer of 1981. Mattingly
was a U.S. Senator, not a state Senator, from Georgia.
Reed never made the comment attributed to him by the ADL calling for
"a country once again governed by Christians-'."(12) Indeed, when asked
on the NBC Meet the Press program in 1992 whether he believed
America was a "Christian nation," Reed disagreed. "I think the only
difference that I would have with it is - and I should probably preface
this by telling you that I began my political career as the executive
director of the first Jewish national chairman of the College Republicans
in the history of the Republican party - I do think that you have to
acknowledge the role that Jews have played and will continue to play,
and I think there's a commonality among Jews and Christians on a lot of
issues because again, ultimately it's a faith that I think has a lot of
common values."(13)
It is not as though adequate documentation of Dr. Reed's views was
unavailable to the ADL. As recently as February of this year, the New
York Times news service carried an extensive profile that noted, "At the
same time, the coalition is making overtures to minorities and Jewish
leaders, hoping to bring some diversity to what has so far been a
remarkably homogeneous movement." Arthur Kropp of People for the
American Way added, "I disagree with [Reed] wholeheartedly, but I
don't detect a mean spiritedness in him that you detect in other leaders.
There's a political astuteness, perseverance, and intelligence."(14)
The ADL also misspells the name of the Coalition's Director of
Legislative Affairs, Marshall Wittmann. This could not have been a
typographical error, as Wittmann's name appears incorrectly spelled
throughout the report. Cursory fact-checking should have caught this
error. (15)
So poorly researched is the report that views attributed to columnist
Robert Novak are based on a quotation so badly lifted out of context that
its meaning is distorted. In arguing that a "grim" Paul Weyrich, a
Washington pro-family strategist, is somehow tied to anti-Semitic
individuals, the report quotes Novak as saying, "I am supposed to be the
Prince of Darkness, but Paul's the only person who's so tough that he
gets hate mail from Mother Theresa."(16) This statement was made by
Mr. Novak at a roast in Weyrich's honor held in Washington, DC, on
April 1, 1991. Clearly, the remark is offered in jest - but it is lifted out of
its proper context by the ADL to distort the true meaning.(17)
Reckless Charges of Anti-Semitism
The ADL report repeatedly suggests that leaders and organizations in
the pro-family movement are guilty of anti-Semitism.
Stung by criticism from within the Jewish community, the ADL is
backpedaling, and now denies making the accusation. For example, in a
response to an earlier Christian Coalition correction of its many factual
errors, the ADL weakly claimed, "the ADL does not call the Christian
Coalition or any other religious right organization anti-Semitic." (18)
Has the ADL not read its own report? It alleges that "movement leaders
have demonstrated a disturbing insensitivity to Jews and Jewish
concerns" (p. 2), that its agenda expresses "anti-Jewish and extremist
sentiments" (p. 2), that its leaders make "public anti-Jewish
pronouncements" (p. 21), that its rhetoric is "reminiscent of traditional
anti-Semitic thinking" (p. 22), that its literature is peppered with "anti-
Jewish nuggets" (p. 24), that its leaders have "issued a number of
pronouncements antagonistic toward Jews" (p. 42), that the movement
has been "tolerant of anti-Semitism" (p. 42), that its publications echo
"evangelical anti-Judaism" (p. 43), and that its groups conspire with
"the nation's leading anti-Semitic propaganda organization" (p. 97). (19)
Had the ADL simply contacted the Christian Coalition and other groups
defamed by the report, extensive documentation could have been
provided to demonstrate our wholehearted and steadfast opposition to
anti-Semitism and bigotry.
In January 1994, Pat Robertson received the highest honor of the
Christians' Israel Public Action Campaign at a Jewish-Christian
solidarity rally in Washington, DC. At the awards ceremony, Robertson
stated, "Those of us who are evangelicals say to those of you who are
Jewish, we are your friends. We stand with you and however easy it is,
or however difficult it is, you can count on us as your friends, your
supporters and your compatriots in a struggle to bring forth the
fulfillment of that prophecy, and to make this a better world for all of us
to live in." (20)
Robertson also told the Los Angeles Times in 1993, "I am convinced on
the political scene that the evangelical churches, the Catholic churches,
the Orthodox Jewish people, all of us, will work together." Ralph Reed
was quoted in the same story as saying, "We're working very closely
with various conservative and orthodox rabbis to try to build a friendship
and cooperation across theological lines on family and moral issues." (21)
Robertson has been a major contributor to the United Jewish Appeal, has
donated large sums to Jewish charities in Jerusalem, and visited the ADL
offices in 1985 to meet with its board of directors. At that meeting,
Robertson held hands with then-executive director Nathan Perlmutter
and the entire board of directors and the group prayed together for an
end to anti-Semitism and intolerance in America. Those present at the
meeting report that many were moved to tears.
In January 1994, Ralph Reed visited Israel on a tour sponsored by the
Jerusalem Post. He met with former Prime Minister Yitzak Shamir,
members of the Knesset, government officials, and the mayor of
Jerusalem. Reed's trip was undertaken with the assistance of Jewish
leaders in the United States to underscore the Christian Coalition's
steadfast support for Israel and Jewish concerns. (22)
Twisting Words Out of Context
One of the most disturbing aspects of the ADL's report is its propensity
to lift words out of context so as to distort their original meaning. It does
so with reference to the irresponsible charge of anti-Semitism.
Citing an editorial in the Christian American newspaper, the ADL
argues that the Christian Coalition believes that "Jews 'both killed the
Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they
please not God, and are contrary to all men' (1 Thessalonians 2:15)."
The ADL dismissively acknowledges that this quotation from the New
Testament appeared in an editorial denouncing anti-Semitism, but refers
to it as "typical of evangelical anti-Judaism." (23)
In fact, the editorial (titled "Anti-Semitism in the Church") cited the
above-mentioned verse from the Bible as an example of Scripture
twisted by anti-Semites in the past to justify their bigotry. The editorial
went on to say that "the place of the Church is to restore, not to
condemn." The column concludes, "Our editorial position has been and
remains clear, consistent, and Biblical: we support the State of Israel and
we oppose anti-Semitism." (24)
In the same issue of Christian American, another statement condemned
bigotry against Jews. "Anti-Semitism is a serious and dangerous thing to
take root and grow. Please do not give aid to this monster, and allow it to
grow any further." (25)
Reaction from the Jewish Community
Many in the Jewish community have reacted with disbelief to the ADL's
assault on Christian leaders who have been among their best friends in
the United States. Midge Decter and Elliot Abrams both have begun
efforts to refute the biased report by the ADL through newspaper
advertisements. Former U.S. Senator Rudy Boschwitz, an honorary
vice-chairman of the ADL, has written a letter distancing himself from
the report. "In my 12 Senate years, I worked with many of the 'Religious
Right.' They were very active in the cause of Soviet Jewry (many
Pentecostals and other Christians couldn't leave the Soviet Union
either). They were fervent supporters of the State of Israel, and we
worked together often. Among the leadership of conservative Christians I
never experienced even a hint of anti-Semitism. Indeed, it was quite the
opposite-I am honorary vice-chairman of the ADL. I am proud of
that-but in this instance I strongly disagree. From all my experience I
know their report to be ill-founded. Regretably it will do more harm
than good." (26)
Marshall Breger of the Heritage Foundation has noted that the report
"inferred that the religious right is anti-Semitic, and I don't see how you
can make that claim on the record." Marshall Wittmann, director of
legislative affairs at the Christian Coalition, says, "This [report] was
liberalism and not Judaism speaking." He adds, "It's quite ironic that the
ADL, despite all the various anti-Semites out there, would go after
people for their political views." (27) Wittmann, who has traveled
extensively speaking to Christian Coalition seminars nationwide,
recounts that he has "never encountered a whiff of anti-Semitism"
among its members. (28)
"The greatest friends the State of Israel has in America are the Christian
conservatives," said Herbert Zweibon, chairman of Americans for a Safe
Israel. "And [the ADL] is telling this community to get lost?" Zweibon
added that the ADL, founded in 1913 to combat anti-Semitism, had
"gone off track" and "adopted a liberal political agenda that has nothing
to do with its mission." The ADL, he concluded, "does not represent the
views of most American Jews." (29)
Opposing David Duke
The ADL frequently resorts to the very same kinds of
guilt-by-association lines of argument patented by virulent
anti-Semites. One of the most egregious examples occurs in its
allegation that Pat Robertson and Christian Coalition board member
Billy McCormack gave aid and support to former klansman and
neo-Nazi David Duke's Louisiana senatorial bid in 1990 and his
gubernatorial bid in 1991. The allegation is not true.
The report says McCormack helped to table a 1990 censure motion
against Duke in the Louisiana Republican Central Committee, implying
that McCormack supported Duke's racist views. (30) This is inaccurate.
Rhett Davis, who served as Congressman Clyde Holloway's campaign
coordinator in the 1991 gubernatorial campaign, says the following about
McCormack's role:
"Months before Congressman Holloway formally announced his
candidacy (though David Duke had already announced), Mr. Billy
McCormack of Shreveport contacted me on numerous occasions
expressing his strong feeling that we needed to convince Congressman
Holloway to run because no other candidate was acceptable- .
Mr. McCormack and his friends statewide began a concentrated effort to
help our campaign. Mr. McCormack was very effective, and ultimately
provided the margin of victory for Holloway at the Republican State
Convention." (31)
Davis also noted that McCormack brought Robertson to Louisiana to
campaign against Duke in October 1991, and Robertson appeared in
Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, and Shreveport at fundraisers for Holloway.
(The trip was paid for by the Holloway for Governor campaign and
Robertson appeared in his capacity as a private citizen.)
"Additionally," Davis continued, "please note that the effort to kill a
move to censure Duke-was actually led by the anti-Duke forces, fearing
such a move would not hurt him, and might indeed backfire like other,
similar moves." (32) Other press accounts have similarly noted that the
resolution was tabled to "deprive Duke of additional publicity." (33)
In November 1991, after Clyde Holloway (the favored candidate of
religious conservatives) failed to make the run-off election for Governor,
pro-family activists faced a dilemma. Edwards was an advocate of
legalized gambling, liberalized pornography laws, and abortion. Duke -
though conservative on these issues - held anti-Semitic and racist views
that are anathema to religious conservatives.
How did religious conservatives react to this dilemma? In the ADL's
green-spectacled fantasy, "Robertson displayed indifference to Duke's
racist record, despite the fact that the national Republican Party-had
repudiated and condemned the arch-bigot more than a year earlier." The
ADL report gravely intones that Robertson "never denounced Duke
during Duke's subsequent Louisiana gubernatorial bid- ." (34) That is an
irresponsible statement for which the ADL should issue a retraction and
an apology.
On November 13, 1991, Robertson denounced Duke on his 700 Club
program before the run-off between Edwards and Duke. His words were
unambiguous:
"You don't get converted one day and run for governor the next. And
especially the fact that there was apparently a falsehood about
his-service- it does not exist, apparently. And furthermore, he claims to
be a member of a church that doesn't exist as well. There are a few little
inconsistencies. Plus there's some really bad stuff in his background- .
And it's very dangerous in America to foster hate, and racial hatred,
hatred of Jews, bigotry - that kind of thing. It is something we just don't
need in this country." (35)
Duke lost a campaign which he had led in many polls just weeks prior to
the election. Many observers noted that Robertson's statement -
strategically timed a few days before the run-off for maximum impact -
might have made the difference by depressing Duke's support among
white evangelical voters. Many other organizations and leaders adopted a
more low-profile tactic in opposing Duke. (36) But Robertson boldly and
publicly spoke out. Instead of praising Robertson for being the most
prominent evangelical Christian figure in America to denounce Duke
and prevent his election, the ADL smeared him with a falsehood.
Conspiracy Theories of the Left
The ADL is obsessed with the notion that Christian conservatives
engage in so-called "stealth" activities that disguise their agenda. It
relies heavily on bizarre theories like those propagated by People for the
American Way and Skipp Porteous, a Massachusetts-based
conspiracist-cum-propagandist who specializes in spreading
falsehoodsand innuendo about religious conservatives.
By combining forces with paranoid conspiracists on the left, the ADL
suggests that the distribution of nonpartisan voter guides by Christian
organizations amounts to a subversion of democracy. The report asserts
that "the policy of Robertson's Christian Coalition has often been to hide
its election activity." (37) It falsely claims that the Coalition
"acknowledges having used [stealth tactics]." It compares volunteers in
churches who educate voters with "Tammany's ward heelers and the old
Democratic machine in Chicago." (38)
The ADL report asserts, "The Coalition participated in the
ground-breaking November 1990 elections in San Diego County in
which 60 of 88 candidates associated with religious right groups were
elected to office - an event that came to be known among the religious
right and its critics as the 'San Diego model.' " (39)
This statement is false. The Christian Coalition played no part in the
1990 San Diego school board elections. At the time, the Coalition barely
had been in existence a year. It had no state affiliate in California and no
chapter in the San Diego area. The Coalition neither practices nor
endorses the "stealth tactics" the ADL claims.
Contacted by the Los Angeles Times after the election, Ralph Reed of
the Christian Coalition made it clear that his organization had nothing
to do with the campaign. He noted that while the tendency of candidates
to campaign in churches might have been an effective strategy, it
probably would backfire if the candidates had not gained broad support
for their views in the electorate.
Reed made these remarks in his capacity as a political analyst. He did not
condone, endorse, or participate in the strategy. The Times misquoted Dr.
Reed, a fact that the ADL could have discovered with a more thorough
search of newspaper accounts on the subject. (40)
If the 1990 San Diego School Board races are a "model," as the ADL
alleges, what were they a model for? The fact is that this strategy failed
in San Diego - many of the candidates who used them were defeated in
1992 - and it never has been replicated again.
The ADL report fails to mention a single other community in the nation
where the strategy has been used. It alludes to an undocumented charge
by Skipp Porteous that such a strategy was undertaken in Williamsville,
New York, but provides no evidence and names not one candidate who
employed them. (41) In fact, the incident in Williamsville never
happened. Jeff Baran, executive director of the Christian Coalition in
New York, made this clear. "I can assure you that, while I have had a
few conversations with Porteous in the past, none have ever contained
talk of running candidates of any kind, let alone 'stealth' candidates. As
is our policy, we have not engaged in partisan politics in Williamsville or
anywhere in New York- ."(42) Apparently San Diego was not a "model"
at all, just a threadbare scare tactic whipped up by conspiracy theorists
like Skipp Porteous and People for the American Way.
Guilty of Democracy
The ADL seeks to tar the name of Christian Coalition by finding the
organization guilty of commiting democracy. Through nonpartisan voter
education efforts, Christian Coalition informs voters where candidates
stand on a broad range of issues, and encourages voters to go to the polls
and cast their ballots for the candidate of their choice.
Christian Coalition leaders have repeatedly disavowed so-called "stealth
tactics." They always have been accessible to the press, open to the
public, and have pursued a policy of honesty and rectitude in their voter
education activities.
Ralph Reed told the Washington Times, "We don't encourage in any
way people to run for office at any level and misrepresent their position
on any issue. We believe pro-family candidates should run
unapologetically on who they are and what they believe because the
public shares their viewpoint." (43)
In an appearance on CNN's Crossfire, Reed specifically denounced the
so-called stealth strategy:
Reed: We're working on behalf of choice in education.We're working to
increase the standard deduction for children. We're working to decrease
the tax burden on the American family. It's a mainstream agenda for a
mainstream America. Eighty percent of the American people want
prayer in school, 75 percent are opposed to abortion as a form of birth
control, and two out of three want choice in education.
Sununu: Ralph, let me ask you this. If those statistics are valid, and I
think they are, then why-the stealth candidate strategy that you're
getting criticized about?
Reed: We don't, John. We don't encourage that. We don't teach it. We
don't promote it. What we think is that, because our values are held by
the vast majority of Americans, go out there and articulate what you
stand for, and you'll draw the people to you. That's what Ronald Reagan
did, and that's what we want to do. (44)
Coalition founder Pat Robertson has been equally clear: "People can say
anything they want to, but it's not the policy of the Christian Coalition
nationally to hide anything. We want to bring out the truth, not hide it.
We want to know what people stand for." (45)
As Ralph Reed argues in his forthcoming book:
"We do not advocate electing officials by depressing voter turnout or
taking advantage of historically low voter participation. Some have
inaccurately charged that religious conservatives hide their religious
affiliation, conducting "stealth" campaigns in which they eschew public
forums and campaign exclusively in churches. The opposite is true. The
Christian Coalition, for example, distributes millions of nonpartisan
voter guides that inform voters on where all the candidates stand- .We
want a more open airing of who the candidates are and what they
believe. Pro-family candidates win at the ballot box because of their
views, not in spite of them. They are elected precisely because of who
they are and what they believe." (46)
The New York City Mode
If the ADL was looking for the real model of Christian Coalition
activity, it would turn to the place where ADL's headquarters is located:
New York City. In 1993, Queens school board member Mary Cummins
led a protest movement against then-New York City School Chancellor
Joseph Fernandez' imposition of the "Rainbow Curriculum," a
multi-cultural course that included instruction on the gay lifestyle to
students as young as six years old.
A local Christian Coalition chapter was organized, coincidentally, about
the same time Cummins raised her voice. The Coalition's New York
City coordinator made contact with Cummins, and over the next two
months the Coalition, in cooperation with the Roman Catholic
Archdiocese of New York, The Congress Of Racial Equality (CORE),
The National Committee For the Furtherance of Jewish Education, and
the Family Defense Council, supported her reform efforts by distributing
550,000 nonpartisan voter guides in 1,300 churches and synagogues.
Catholics, Hispanics and Jews joined the Christian Coalition to distribute
more than 500,000 nonpartisan voter guides prior to the New York City
School Board races. In addition to church and synagogue distribution,
Christian Coalition voter guides were passed out at union halls, polling
places and family events. The guides informed voters where 540 school
board candidates stood on a broad range of issues, including school
choice, voluntary prayer, merit pay for teachers and parental rights. The
guides endorsed no candidates and were used for voter education. In a
far-reaching show of support, Cardinal John O'Connor allowed the
distribution of voter guides in 300 Catholic churches, a move that opened
the door to ongoing Catholic/evangelical cooperation.
As a result of Christian Coalition's voter education campaign, voter
turnout reached the highest level in 20 years. Approximately 450,000
voters went to the polls, and 60 percent of 130 pro-family candidates
won election. Ten city school boards had solid pro-family majorities.
Among the new board members: Linda Garcia, a Hispanic mother who
won election in Manhattan's Lower East Side. Cummins and her allies
were re-elected in Brooklyn. Fernandez was removed from his post. (47)
The Coalition's efforts in New York were the subject of ongoing press
coverage from the beginning, and virtually every significant development
was reported in detail. The Coalition held numerous news conferences in
New York during the campaign to announce its activities. Indeed, when
the New York Times and the New York Post listed which candidates
they preferred in the contests, they did so based on information derived
from the Coalition's well-documented voter guide. (48) So much for
"stealth."
Reed told the New York Times during the campaign: "We're simply
encouraging people of faith, of all religious traditions, including people of
the Jewish and Roman Catholic faiths, to be informed voters." (49)
Another Distortion: The Phantom Manual
Seeking more fodder for its conspiracy grist mill, the ADL repeats the
tired and false accusation that the "1992 Pennsylvania Christian
Coalition's 'County Action Plan' directed" members to "never mention
the name Christian Coalition in Republican circles." (50)
To state the obvious, Christian Coalition's activities within the GOP are
a matter of public knowledge, especially given extensive news coverage
of the last several years. With Democratic consultant Bob Beckel calling
politically active evangelicals "Nazis," Mark Shields referring to them as
the "American equivalent of Shiite Muslims," and Jocelyn Elders
attacking them, it is difficult to see how the ADL can think that anyone
is unaware of Christian involvement in the Republican party.
In fact, the manual the ADL cites does not exist. The "County Action
Plan" was a draft prepared by a local volunteer. It was submitted to the
national office and rejected as inconsistent with the Coalition's policy of
openness and inclusion.
As Ralph Reed directed in a letter on October 7, 1992, to the executive
director of the Pennsylvania chapter:
"There are several problems with the manual-It directs Christian
Coalition members not to mention their affiliation with the Christian
Coalition in party circles. That is not our policy- .This manual, in its
current form, does not have the authorization or imprimatur of the
Christian Coalition. Please retrieve all copies- ." (51)
The ADL need only have contacted the Christian Coalition and its staff
would have gladly provided a copy of the letter. As it is, the ADL has
repeated a false allegation about a manual that does not exist. In fact, the
ADL barely mentions the legitimate and extensive Christian Coalition
training materials, such as its 256-page Leadership Manual, which
states the official policy of the organization.
Indeed, the Leadership Manual clearly urges pro-family citizens to be
open, honest and up front about their views and beliefs:
"First, do not limit your campaign to just churches and the Christian
community. As a supporter of family values, your positions on issues
affecting the family are the same as a majority of the voting public. Do
not be shy in declaring that your stands on the issues are based on
principle- ."
"Do not use so-called 'stealth' tactics. In the past, some candidates have
focused their campaigns on the churches and have not reached out to the
general electorate. In the long run, this strategy is unsuccessful-
.Working in the churches alone will not result in lasting success." (52)
A Nonpartisan Coalition
Christian Coalition's get-out-the-vote efforts are nonpartisan, contrary
to the ADL's assertions. The ADL repeats partisan claims by the
Democratic National Committee, which recently has launched an
orchestrated campaign of bigotry against people of faith in the political
arena. It mentions specious complaints that the DNC has filed with
Federal Election Commission. It fails to mention that both the FEC and
the IRS have found the Christian Coalition's nonpartisan voter guides in
full compliance with the law.
The ADL conveniently ignores the fact that every complaint filed by the
Democratic Party against the Coalition has been resolved in favor of the
Christian Coalition, most notably a 1990 complaint that advertisements
opposing taxpayer-funding of pornography constituted "express
advocacy" on behalf of specific candidates. The FEC found that the
advertisements were entirely consistent with the Christian Coalition's
status as a nonpartisan issues organization. (53)
The ADL also fails to mention the fact that the Coalition has engaged in
voter education activities in a number of Democratic races. For example,
in the spring of 1994 in Houston, Texas, the Coalition distributed voter
guides in a campaign in which Beverly Clark, an African-American,
pro-life Democrat, ran in a congressional primary. "The Christian
Coalition distributed nonpartisan voter guides in over 100 black churches
and made thousands of nonpartisan get-out-the-vote calls to
African-American voters from grassroots phone banks." (54) Clark
forced Ken Bentsen, nephew of the Treasury secretary and former Texas
senator, into a run-off.
A voter guide distributed for the April 12 Democratic run-off listed
Clark's and Bentsen's stands (labeled "supports" or "opposes") on ten
public policy issues. The answers were provided to the Coalition in
response to a candidate survey. Those issues were: "Increased income
taxes; balanced budget amendment; abortion-on-demand; taxpayer
funding of abortion; voluntary prayer in schools; mandatory sentences
for violent crimes; homosexuals in the military; parental choice in
education (vouchers); federal government control of health care;
'workfare' requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to work or get job
training." (55) The Coalition distributed a similar voter guide in a
Mississippi Democratic congressional primary in 1994.
In Cincinnati, Ohio in 1993, pro-family activists supported Charles
Winburn, an African-American pastor of the Kingdome Church, in his
run for the city council. Winburn, a registered Democrat, graduated from
a Christian Coalition training school and campaigned for welfare reform
and school choice. (56)
Reaching Out to Democrats
The Coalition's 1994 Congressional Scorecard, which lists Senators' and
Representatives' votes on a wide range of issues affecting families, makes
no distinctions based upon party affiliation. Representative Charles
Stenholm, (D-TX) scored a 100-percent rating on the Christian
Coalition Scorecard. Representative Pete Geren, (D-TX) scored a 93-
percent rating, as did Representative Gene Taylor, (D-MS). Some of the
Democrats who have spoken at Christian Coalition events in recent
years include: state Representative Roger Byrd (D-GA), Duval County
(FL) School Board member Stan Jordan, Beverly Clark, Charles
Winburn, and State Representative Woody Jenkins (D-LA). (57)
A number of other Democrats received high ratings on the
Congressional Scorecard. Sen. Richard Shelby (D-AL), for instance,
agreed with Coalition positions on 71 percent of the surveyed votes.
Representative Jimmy Hayes (D-LA) scored 86 percent. Representative
Sonny Montgomery (D-MS) rated 71 percent, as did Representative
William Lipinski (D-IL). Representative Matthew McHugh (D-NY)
had a 93-percent rating.
The Christian Coalition Scorecard highlighted Senate votes on such
issues as: tax incentives for families; balanced budget amendment;
taxpayer-funded abortions; Joycelyn Elders' nomination for surgeon
general; term limits for Congress; and condoms for school children
without parental consent. House votes included: cutting government
waste; parental notification for abortion; abstinence-based sex
education; lifting the ban on fetal tissue research; criminalizing pro-life
speech. Each vote is factually described. (58)
The 1994 Congressional Scorecard clearly states that the listing of these
votes on issues affecting the family does not imply an endorsement for
office or a commentary on the personal faith of the elected official. "This
Scorecard is for informational purposes and is not intended to influence
the outcome of any election," the Scorecard reads. "Christian Coalition
does not advocate the election or defeat of any candidate, and does not
endorse any political party. Scores in this Scorecard are not to be taken
as a commentary on the personal faith of individual members of
Congress. The information in this Scorecard is provided as a tool to help
you more effectively lobby your Congressman and two Senators on
issues before the 103rd Congress." (59)
The Coalition's Scorecard and voter guides are little different from the
informational ratings issued by the AFL-CIO, Americans for
Democratic Action, American Conservative Union and numerous other
organizations. The Coalition simply provides to voters - of all political
persuasions - what they richly deserve: reference tools that show how
their elected representatives in government stand on issues of concern to
families.
How the Christian Coalition Works
The ADL complains that Coalition members play a major role in some
state and local party organizations because they are the most energetic
participants. What is wrong with citizens taking part in the political
process? The ADL takes issue with religious conservatives who are
simply exercising their rights of citizenship.
The Christian Coalition's Leadership Manual provides members with
nuts-and-bolts information on the electoral process, from how to
organize a local chapter and requirements for Christian Coalition
affiliation to how to conduct a voter canvass.
The Coalition's purposes, as outlined in the manual, are as follows:
1. To represent Christians before local councils, state legislatures
and the U.S. Congress.
2. To train Christians for effective political action.
3. To inform Christians of timely issues and legislation.
4. To speak out in the public arena and the media.
5. To protest anti-Christian bigotry. (60)
"Your job as a Christian Coalition leader is to identify the Christian vote
and get it to the polls," the manual says. (61) In this sense, the
Coalition's mission is no different from the League of Women Voters,
the National Organization for Women, NARAL, the AFL-CIO, or Jesse
Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, which has registered hundreds of
thousands of African-Americans to vote.
The Coalition's policy stances are rooted in faith - as were America's
founders, who spoke of the people of this nation as being endowed by
their "Creator" with "certain inalienable rights." As Reed said on NBC's
Meet the Press: "The apostle Paul told the early Christians to render
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to exercise their civic
responsibility. And what we're saying is that in a democracy, when you
render unto the government that which is due it, that means your vote,
your informed participation and your involvement." (62)
Personalizing Public Policy Differences
The ADL apparently regards grassroots democracy as a threat to, in its
words, "tolerance and pluralism." In fact, the Coalition and the ADL
simply disagree on public policy issues. The Coalition does not support
taxpayer-funded abortion as a form of birth control. Neither do 87
percent of the American people, according to a recent survey. But the
ADL equates a pro-family, pro-life position with intolerance. Indeed,
Abe Foxman, executive director of the ADL, even charges that
supporting the sanctity of innocent human life creates "hostility" in
which "tolerance and pluralism inevitably plummet." (63) To equate
one's public policy views with "tolerance" and impugn one's political foes
as opposed to "pluralism" is intellectually dishonest.
The Christian Coalition believes students should be allowed to exercise
their First Amendment right to free speech, including speech of a
religious content. The ADL says this somehow violates the separation of
church and state. If so, it may have a dispute with President Clinton as
well. In a town hall meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, in April 1994,
Clinton stated his view that voluntary prayer does not violate the
Constitution: "Now, it's been carried to such an extent now where they
say, some people have said you can't have a prayer at a graduation
exercise. I personally didn't agree with that. Why? Because if you're
praying at a graduation exercise or a sporting event, it's a big open air
thing, and no one's being coerced."
"I do not agree that people should not be able to freely pray and to
acknowledge God. We have a chaplain in Congress, in the Senate and
the House." (64)
Does the ADL believe that President Clinton is undermining pluralism
by his opposition to the Lee v. Weisman decision of 1992 that bans high
school graduation prayer? His position is identical to that of the
Christian Coalition.
We may believe the ADL is wrong about some policy issues, but unlike
the ADL we do not question their right to hold such views or their
commitment to pluralism. And we stand arm-and-arm with the ADL in
giving no quarter to anti-Semitism or bigotry of any kind.
Partisan Attacks
Unfortunately, the ADL report has become part of a highly partisan
campaign against religious folk launched by the national Democratic
party. By lending its name to this campaign against people of faith, the
ADL risks being viewed as an organization driven more by partisan
politics than Jewish concerns.
In August 1993, the Washington-based National Jewish Democratic
Council held a conference to organize a 40-group coalition to oppose
Christian conservatives. Among the participants were Arthur Kropp,
president of People for the American Way, and Clinton Cabinet
members Federico Pena and Donna Shalala. (65)
Throughout 1993, Lieutenant Governor Don Beyer of Virginia ran a
particularly vicious, bigoted campaign against Mike Farris, the
Republican candidate for lieutenant governor. Beyer used materials
supplied by People for the American Way which accused Farris of
seeking to ban books such as The Wizard of Oz. The Washington Post
concluded that the charges were false. Michael Barone of U.S. News and
World Report said that the allegation against Farris "unfairly distorts
and ridicules" his views. (66)
In June of 1994, just days after the ADL released its report,
Representative Vic Fazio (D-CA), chairman of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, launched a new attack on religious
conservatives, calling them "fire-breathing fanatics." The Democratic
National Committee even has set up a bulletin board on Compuserve
called "Radical Right," which contains speeches and other party
documents designed to assault Christians.
U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders gave a speech in New York City
within weeks of the ADL report's release in which she referred to
religious folk who are conservatives as "un-Christian." This was a clear
assault on the deeply-held religious beliefs of millions of Americans. All
44 Republicans in the Senate condemned this act of arch-bigotry in a
letter to President Bill Clinton, and 87 members of the House of
Representatives called for Elders' resignation. (67) What was the ADL's
reaction to this act of defamation? Thunderous silence.
The ADL, once a respected civil rights organization, has aided and
abetted a campaign of intolerance against people of faith with whom
they disagree politically. Instead of calling the Democrats to task for
dividing Americans based on where they go to church or synagogue, the
ADL has cast its own stones.
"It's an old thing in politics," said Representative Dick Armey of Texas,
"Whenever you are trying to get people's attention, you create a monster
out there. So, they are looking for a bogeymen, and they are hyping the
story that the Republican Party is being taken over by a bunch of
extremists." (68)
"We are in a race between civilization and catastrophe," former
Education Secretary Bill Bennett said of the campaign against religious
conservatives. "We have record murder and violent crime rates, huge
increases in births to unwed mothers, educational decline, broken
families, and a president who has established a record of broken
promises. All of this, and we are told that the very religious are what we
must fear. Religion is on the side of civilization; more people ought to
begin to realize it." (69)
The Separation of Church and State
The ADL report is full of accusations that the Christian Coalition does
not support the separation of church and state. Its sources include
undated flyers passed out at conferences and quotations lifted out of
context - as well as more unreliable pseudo-scholarship by Skipp
Porteous. It also features attacks on David Barton, a Texas-based
scholar who has argued that many of America's founders were
sympathetic to Christian values. Most of Barton's work extensively
documents writings of the nation's founders.
The truth is that there is a lively debate about the role of religion in
public life and the meaning of the First Amendment. The Christian
Coalition supports the Establishment clause prohibiting a state-
sponsored church. It does not support attempts to use the establishment
clause to stifle the free speech rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims, native
Americans, or anyone else.
That is why the Christian Coalition supported the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993, which overturned the Supreme Court's 1990
decision in Employment Division v. Smith. In this decision the Court
discarded the "compelling state interest standard" criteria for judging
whether laws violated rights to free exercise of religion. The ADL
strongly supported this legislation as well.
In the same spirit, the Christian Coalition supports free speech rights for
children in public schools. While we oppose mandatory prayers composed
by school officials, we believe voluntary, student-initiated prayer is
consistent with First Amendment rights to free speech. While
disagreements over First Amendment issues abound, it is disingenuous to
suggest that those who would allow religious speech in public schools are
ipso facto opposed to church-state separation. The ADL quotes Pat
Robertson as arguing that the "separation of church and state" is a
"Soviet concept." This quotation is lifted out of context. Robertson
merely noted that the term "separation of church and state" does not
appear in the U.S. Constitution, which is a statement of fact. The First
Amendment specifically reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Robertson is a strong supporter of the First Amendment. For example,
during his 1988 presidential campaign, Robertson stated: "I believe
absolutely in the separation of church and state." (70)
In 1991, he said on Larry King Live, "I think it [the separation of church
and state] is far better. You look at Europe where they have established
churches and they are really dying out. We have a much healthier
church here in America, free from government money- .But I don't
think the Constitution requires government to be opposed to religious
faith."(71)
Robertson's words echo those of William O. Douglas in Zorach v.
Clauson (1952). "We are a religious people whose system of government
presupposes a Supreme Being," argued Douglas. There was, he added,
"no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government
to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen
the effective scope of religious influence." (72)
For most of America's history, church pulpits flamed with sermons
about social injustices ranging from slavery and racism to poverty and
the liquor trade. No one suggested that these activities posed a threat to
the separation of church and state. Americans always have resisted the
notion of a national religion, but embraced faith-based political
movements as an essential counterbalance to social injustice and
government encroachments on liberty.
This is the view of the Christian Coalition. As Ralph Reed argues in his
forthcoming book: "None of this adds up to the conclusion that America
is a 'Christian nation' in the sense of a theocratic state or a unicultural
society. That not only ignores the enormous contribution that Jews have
made to America, but it is something of an anachronism. It makes just as
much sense to say that Massachusetts is a Puritan colony or that
Maryland is a Catholic state." (73)
Reed adds, "What religious conservatives want is to accommodate the
historic role of faith in American civic life. In short, they seek to restore
the time-honored tradition of civil religion - not to establish
Christianity by law or to create an official church." (74)
"Our agenda, ultimately, of the Christian Coalition, isn't about
theology," Reed said on ABC Nightline recently. "It is about public
policy. We are trying to get public policy that is more family-friendly.
And we think lower taxes, smaller government, and government that
lives within its means is more family friendly." (75)
Conclusion
The supreme tragedy of the ADL report is there is a resurgent
anti-Semitism across the land emanating from sources as wide-ranging
as the Ku Klux Klan, former Farrakhan lieutenant Kahlid Abdul
Muhammad (who called New York city "Jew York City"), David Duke,
and some opponents of the Israeli lobby. But an inaccurate, biased, and
politically motivated report like the recent ADL offering undermines
efforts to combat anti-Semitism. By crying wolf, the ADL endangers its
credibility at a time of rising bigotry and a period of extraordinary
delicacy in the Middle East peace process.
In response to criticism of its report, the ADL has refused to back off,
though it has engaged in some strategic public relations backpedaling.
(76) For its part, the Christian Coalition will continue to combat
anti-Semitism and religious bigotry in all its ugly forms. It is willing to
seek common ground with Jewish organizations on issues of mutual
concern. The Christian Coalition never will waver from its steadfast
defense of the Jewish people and the nation of Israel, though it has been
unfairly attacked by the ADL.
"The Jewish community should recognize the depth of religious faith
among Christian evangelicals and treat the Religious Right with
tolerance and respect," urges Marshall Breger of the Heritage
Foundation. (77)
The ADL has displayed neither tolerance nor respect. Instead, it has
engaged in a partisan campaign of innuendo, half-truths and outright
falsehoods.
Sadly, the ultimate losers are not the ADL's constituency, but all of us,
for we desperately need a legitimate watchdog to combat bigotry. The
Anti-Defamation League has committed defamation, not only against
religious conservatives, but against its own stated purpose.
We earnestly hope the ADL returns to its time-honored and vital role of
ensuring that intolerance has no place in our civic discourse. For our part
- despite the unfair and shoddily researched attack by the ADL - we
will remain vigilant in seeing that anti-Semitism and bigotry does not
rear its monstrous head in our society.
END NOTES
1. Mona Charen, "ADL Playing Upon Old Fears?"Washington Times,
July 7, 1994, A17.
2. Boschwitz Op-Ed submitted to the New York Times July 25, 1994.
3. Sam Skolnik, "ADL Takes Heat for Criticizing Christian
Right,"Washington Jewish Week, June 30, 1994.
4. Don Feder, "ADL Attack Discredits Organization," Boston Herald,
June 16, 1994.
5. Beth Gilinsky, letter to the editor, New York Post, July 13, 1994
(original in possession of author).
6. An "annotated" bibliography provides few specific references. For
sources on the Christian Coalition, for example, the ADL provides vague
clues such as this: "The Los Angeles Times provided a comprehensive
account of San Diego by Barry Horstman (March 22, 1992), and
generally offers reliable West Coast coverage; the Norfolk
Virginian-Pilot, The Freedom Writer, Group Research Report, People
for the American Way's occasional reports and the group's monthly,
Right- Wing Watch, were consulted frequently." Thus, the reader is
supposed to take it on ADL' s word that its sources are reliable and that
the quotations in the ADL report are accurate. Without specific listings
of sources it is impossible to check many of its assertions.
7. Acknowledgments in the ADL report include, in addition to those
already mentioned: Project Toscin, Coalition for Human Dignity, Group
Research Report, Citizens Project, Mainstream Voters Project and
Women' s Project. ADL, p. i.
8. Larry Kanter, "Gaining Journalistic Status Gives ADL a Legal Shot
in the Arm," Northern California Jewish Bulletin, v. 142, No. 38,
October 15, 1993, p. 3.
9. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 42.
10. Thomas L. Jipping, "The Anti-Defamation League's Campaign of
Defamation," Free Congress Foundation, June 24, 1994, p. 13.
11. ADL, "The Religious Right," p. 27.
12. Ibid.
13. Transcript of NBC's Meet the Press, November 29, 1992, p. 4.
14. Sean Loughlin, "Christian Coalition's Soldier Marches On," Sarasota
Herald-Tribune, February 22, 1994.
15. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 42. (The ADL consistently spells
Wittmann' s name as "Wittman.")
16. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 91.
17. Thomas L. Jipping, "The Anti-Defamation League's Campaign of
Defamation," June 24, 1994, Free Congress Foundation, p. 14.
18. David Cantor, "Anti-Defamation League Response to the Christian
Coalition," July 13, 1994.
19. ADL, "Religious Right," pp. 2, 21, 22, 24, 42, 43, 97.
20. Transcript of speech for Christians' Israel Public Action Campaign,
"Pat Robertson: Defender of Israel," January 30, 1994, p. 12.
21. Larry B. Stammer, "Religious Broadcasters Vow Fight On Doctrine
Issue," Los Angeles Times, February 18, 1993.
22. John Wheeler, Jr., "Peace in the Holy Land," Christian American,
February 1994, page 1, 4.
23. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 43.
24. John Wheeler, Jr., "Anti-Semitism in the Church," Christian
American, July/August 1991, p. 12.
25. Ibid, p. 12.
26. Rudy Boschwitz Op-Ed submitted to the New York Times July 25,
1994.
27. Sam Skolnik, "ADL Takes Heat for Criticizing Christian Right,"
Washington Jewish Week, June 20, 1994.
28. Don Feder, "ADL Attack Discredits Organization," Boston Herald,
June 16, 1994.
29. Rod Drehrer, "Pro-Israel Group Decried ADL Attack: Christian
Conservatives Are Friends," Washington Times, June 28, 1994, A12.
30. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 45.
31. Memo to Christian Coalition from Rhett Davis, July 5, 1994.
32. Ibid.
33. Don Feder, "ADL Attack Discredits Organization," Boston Herald,
June 16, 1994.
34. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 2.
35. Transcript of CBN' s 700 Club, November 13, 1991.
36. Dennis King and Chip Berlet, "ADL Gate," Tikkun, July/August
1993, p.36. The article describes how ADL leaders complained to the
media about how they had been sidelined in their efforts to refute Duke's
campaign because of their 501 (c) (3) status. Yet the ADL criticizes
other organizations with the same tax status for not denouncing the
Duke campaign.
37. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 20.
38. Ibid, p. 29.
39. Ibid, p. 28.
40. Thomas B. Edsall, "Christian Political Soldier Helps Revive
Movement," Washington Post, September 10, 1993, A4.
41. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 20.
42. Jeff Baran, letter to Christian Coalition national office, July 25, 1994.
43. Carol Innerst, "Parents Labeled Religious Fanatics for Fighting
Schools: Schools Learn Ways to Pin Labels on Parental Foes,"
Washington Times, April 13, 1994, A1.
44. Transcript of CNN' s Crossfire, December 18, 1992 [Transcript
#727], p. 10.
45. KABC Radio, November 15, 1993.
46. Ralph E. Reed, working manuscript: The Dynamic Role of Religion
in American Life (Dallas, TX: Word, Inc., 1994), p. 34.
47. Ralph E. Reed, "Casting a Wider Net," Policy Review, (Summer
1993), p. 31-33.
48. See, for example: "Christian Coalition NYC Voter Driver is
Multi-Cultural Grassroots Effort," Christian Coalition press release,
April 28, 1993. The New York Times carried in-depth stories about the
Coalition's involvement in the May 4 elections on April 10, April 16 and
April 17. Other New York media provided similarly detailed coverage.
49. Sam Dillon, "Spirited Race for Schools Accelerates," New York
Times, April 28, 1993, B2.
50. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 32.
51. Letter from Ralph Reed to Rick Schenker, October 7, 1992.
52. Christian Coalition Leadership Manual (1994), p. 19.
53. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 36-37; 1990 FEC MURS 3167 and 3176,
pp. 23, 24.
54. Reed, working manuscript, p. 223.
55. Christian Coalition Voter Guide, Texas Democratic Runoff Election,
U.S. Congress, District 25.
56. Barbara Woerner, "African-American Christian Wins Office,"
Christian American (April 1994), p. 9.
57. Christian Coalition Congressional Scorecard, 1994 Edition.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Christian Coalition Leadership Manual, p. 1.3.
61. Ibid, p. 3.23.
62. Transcript of NBC's Meet the Press, November 29, 1992, p. 1.
63. ADL, "Religious Right," p. iii.
64. White House Press Office, "Remarks of President Clinton in
'Evening with the President' in Charlotte, North Carolina," April 28,
1994, U.S. Newswire.
65. Deborah Kalb, "Jewish Democrats Target Religious Right,"
Manhattan Jewish Sentinel, August 11-17, 1993, pp. 1, 11.
66. Michael Barone, "In Virginia, Distorted Debate," Washington Post,
October 28, 1993, p. A23.
67. Larry Marasak, "Elders Resignation Urged," Houston Chronicle,
June 25, 1994.
68. Transcript of ABC's Nightline, June 23, 1994.
69. Statement by William J. Bennett, Press Conference on Religious
Bigotry in Virginia Politics, October 25, 1993.
70. John Margolis, "Robertson Candidacy on Line in South Carolina,"
Chicago Tribune, March 5, 1988.
71. Transcript of CNN's Larry King Live, April 10, 1991.
72. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).
73. Reed, working manuscript: p. 126.
74. Ibid.
75. Transcript of ABC's Nightline, June 23, 1994.
76. In a letter to the editor of the New York Post published on July 13,
1993, Foxman downplays the ADL report as mere "criticism" and says
"a healthy democracy encourages and depends on the political
involvement of conservative Christians."
77. Marshall Breger, "Jewish Community Should Recognize Depth of
Religious Faith," Moment, April 1994, p. 14.
Copyright � 1995 by The Christian Coalition of this page and all contents.
All Rights Reserved.
|
| here's a bit more on that report. I seriously doubt the whole thing is
on-line anywhere since it's 193 pages long! No, I'm not going to order
it and type it all in. :*)
jim
THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: THE ASSAULT ON TOLERANCE &
PLURALISM IN AMERICA. © 1994, Anti-Defamation
League. 193 pages.
Introduction: "It is easy to see that it is particularly important in
democratic times to make spiritual conceptions prevail, but it is far from
easy to say what those who govern democratic peoples should do to make
them prevail. ...when it comes to state religions, I have always thought
that, though they may perhaps sometimes momentarily serve the
interests of political power, they are always sooner or later fatal for the
church." Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America, 1835.
"Spiritual conceptions" have flourished in this country since the first
Pilgrims dropped anchor off Provincetown in 1620. Though the
theocratic plans of these New England dissidents barely survived a
generation, "the first nation to disestablish religion remains a marvel of
religiosity," as Garry Wills has written. Tocqueville knew well, like
Jefferson and Madison before and Justice Hugo Black after him, that
coerced religion corrupts the coercers and the religion. "European
Christianity," the great historian wrote, "has allowed itself to be
intimately
united with the powers of this world. Now that these powers are falling,
it is as if it were buried under their ruins."
During the past 15 years, an exclusionist religious movement in this
country has attempted to restore what it perceives as the ruins of a
Christian nation by seeking more closely to unite its version of
Christianity with state power. Ironically, the groups and activists that
have come to be known as the "religious right" crusade both rhetorically
and in their policy aims against the very protection -- the separation of
church and state -- that has secured the vitality of religion throughout
American history.
This crusade has proceeded in the 1990s through grassroots campaigns to
"return faith to our public schools," subsidize private religious education,
roll back civil rights protections, oppose all abortions, and ensure that
"pro-family Christians" gain control of the Republican Party. National
groups with many thousands of members have spurred these efforts,
inciting the movement with grim cadences of warfare. "This is really the
most significant battle of the age-old conflict between good and evil,
between the forces of God and forces against God," strategist Paul
Weyrich has maintained. Christian Coalition leader Pat Robertson
warns his followers to "expect confrontations that will be not only
unpleasant but at times physically bloody." He asserts: "Just like what
Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the
evangelical Christians. It's the same thing."
Thus embattled, groups and activists have ratcheted up their rhetoric.
Leading figures denounce church/state separation as "religious
cleansing," "a socialist myth," "a lie of the left," "not a wall but a coffin."
The day after delivering the benediction at the 1984 Republican
convention, Rev. W.A. Criswell told CBS: "There is no such thing as
separation of church and state. It is merely a figment in the imagination
of infidels."
Similarly, political targets are often dispatched with virulence and
paranoia: opponents are not merely wrong, they are "the enemy" and
"Satanic." Feminists "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
capitalism, and become lesbians."Abortion is the " 'Final Solution' ...just
like Hitler, it calls for the planned, state-sponsored EXTERMINATION
of an entire class of innocent citizens...." Public education is "a socialist,
anti-God system of education." Gays and lesbians comprise the "most
pernicious evil today." A former Congressman speaks of "the
homosexual blitzkrieg" and maintains: "Unlike the French, who wept in
the streets of Paris as the Germans marched by, we don't even know
we've been conquered."
The hysteria of this language excites resentment on all sides and
degrades or disallows reasonable discourse. It reflects as well a basic
rejection of a society that includes dissent and pluralism -- the modern
democratic state. The political agenda of the religious right movement is,
in turn, an attempt to legislate this rejection. Flimflam histories
contending that the original "Christian" United States has been undone
by a small, powerful anti-Christian elite provide bogus intellectual
support and further poison public goodwill. As with other revisionist
efforts, this religious right assault on history is a vehicle for anger and
scapegoating: here, pluralism itself is scapegoated, and the religious
right's crowded pandemonium comprises essentially any agency or figure
associated with pluralism, including non-religious right evangelicals.
Unsurprisingly, this bitter push to replace the wall of separation with a
citadel of Christianity -- while suggesting that those who defend the
wall are "enemies of God" -- has been abetted, sometimes at the highest
levels, by figures who have expressed conspiratorial, anti-Jewish, and
extremist sentiments. On numerous other occasions, movement leaders
have demonstrated a disturbing insensitivity to Jews and Jewish
concerns. This apparent
commonplace of life in the city on a hill, which has only one
neighborhood, calls to mind Saul Bellow's warning: "Everybody knows
there is no fineness or accuracy of suppression. If you hold down one
thing, you hold down the adjoining."
Free Exercise
Yet those who object to the religious right movement too often engage
the intolerance and stereotyping they purport to decry. Anti-Christian
bigotry may be exaggerated by Pat Robertson and others, but it is not
merely a figment in the imagination of evangelicals. The disdain of H.L.
Mencken, who called fundamentalists "yokels," "half-wits," and "gaping
primates," unfortunately lingers in the popular imagination. As Yale law
professor Stephen Carter has suggested recently, critics err when they
imply that the religious right poses a concern because of its religiosity
rather than its platform. The problems raised by the movement are
secular. "We must be able," states Carter, "to distinguish a critique of the
content of a belief from a critique of its source."
The extensive political training and school curricula scrutiny encouraged
by religious right groups, for instance, is frequently viewed by critics as a
threat to, rather than an exercise of, good citizenship -- and a prod for
opponents to do likewise. Yet few such concerns regarding church-state
separation were sounded by these critics when Christians organized on
behalf of civil rights or the nuclear freeze. This is plainly inconsistent
and illiberal.
Like anyone else, evangelical Christians have the right to organize, to
run for office, to lobby, to boycott, to demonstrate, to attempt to
implement their views. More than that, a healthy democracy encourages
and depends on their doing so; it depends, that is, on a jumble of voices in
the public square. Throughout American history, religion -- largely a
vigorous, splintery Protestantism -- has been at the center of social
movements: abolition, temperance, civil rights, opposition to war,
abortion. Similarly, contemporary religious right activism has grown out
of a widely shared sense of cultural breakdown -- buttressed by reams
of grievous statistics about crime, health, families -- that seems to have
exhausted the remedial policies of secular governance.
Religion has served democracy at such junctures precisely because,
separated from the state, it exerts a moral authority that challenges the
power of the state. As Carter writes, "A religion is, at its heart, a way of
denying the authority of the rest of the world." Moreover, it keeps
secularists and pluralists honest by asking how pluralism, which entails
moral pluralism, is something other than a friendly face of nihilism.
Sociologist James Davison Hunter quotes a satirical anti-abortion
advocate in regard to this problem of ethical relativism: "Personally, I'm
opposed to the bombing of abortion clinics, but I don't want to impose
my morality on anyone else."
The religious right goes wrong, however, because it would respond to the
problem of moral authority by asking the state to mandate values -- a
state upon which it means to impose its own religious identity. Rather
than compete for the spiritual allegiance of citizens -- a competition
that has fostered both religion and liberty -- conservative evangelicals
would command it. Their public policies ultimately attack the source of
their own strength, and of the country's. The nature of that attack is the
subject of this report.
Contents: The Religious Right: Introduction, Religious Right Visions of
America: A Sampling, The "Religious Right": A Definition, Section I:
The Religious Right in the 1990s; Section II: The
Religious Right's Attack on Church/State Separation: A Closer Look;
Section III: In the Beginning: The Genesis of the Religious Right;
Section IV: Other Important Organizations and Leaders; Conclusion,
Appendix A: Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Charismatic;
Appendix B: Prophecy Belief; Appendix C: Common Myths About
Separation of Church and State; Annotated Bibliography, Index.
Religion In The Public Schools: Guidelines for a Growing and
Changing Phenomenon, For K-12, Revised 1996, 34 Pages
The place of religion in the nation's public schools has been a hotly
contested issue for decades. Recently, the topic has been increasingly
debated and challenged.
This handbook features sample scenarios regarding religion and religious
activities in the nation's public schools, for kindergarten through twelfth
grade. In a question-and-answer format it provides legal and policy
guidelines for school board members, school administration, teachers,
parents and others who seek guidance regarding what religious activity is
constitutionally permissible, and what is prohibited in public schools, as
well as what is advisable. The handbook highlights the potential
problems which may arise when religion enters into public schools. It
emphasizes the need for schools not only to adopt clear and
constitutionally sound guidelines, but also constantly to monitor the
implementations of such guidelines.
ADL IN THE COURTS: LITIGATION DOCKET 1995 ©
1995, Anti-Defamation League. 33 pages.
In 1947 ADL filed its first amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief,
thereby inaugurating the use of a critical method to pursue its mandate
of combating bigotry and discrimination, and defending the rights and
liberties of all Americans. An amicus brief is filed by an individual or
group, which is not a party to the lawsuit, but generally has expertise
regarding the issue before the court, as well as an interest in the outcome
of the case. The first ADL amicus brief, submitted together with other
Jewish civil rights organizations in the landmark United States Supreme
Court case Shelley v. Kraemer, argued against restrictive real estate
covenants.
Since 1947, ADL has filed amicus briefs in numerous cases covering a
broad range of issues - from separation of church and state to racial
discrimination to abortion. The principal way in which ADL gets
involved in litigation is by filing amicus briefs, most commonly at the
appellate level. While some of the cases in which ADL has intervened
have involved Jewish litigants, or raised issues pertaining solely to the
Jewish people or Israel, most have not. But, in every amicus brief which
ADL has filed, it has sought to combat discrimination and prejudice,
based upon the conviction that the rights and liberties of Jews will only
be secure when those of all minorities, and of all Americans, are secure
as well.
In many cases, ADL has filed amicus briefs together with other Jewish,
public interest or civil rights organizations. Often amicus briefs are
written on behalf of ADL by outside experts or lay leaders in
consultation with the ADL Legal Affairs Department. On other
occasions, briefs are prepared by ADL staff attorneys.
"ADL IN THE COURTS: Litigation Docket 1995" describes the amicus
briefs which ADL has filed since the previous docket was published in
the fall of 1994, and also discusses decisions handed down in the past
year in cases in which ADL previously filed an amicus brief and updates
the status of cases in which decisions have not yet been rendered.
|