Religious Right Watch

Mark Benjamin on "reparative therapy"

Here's is a summary of Part 1 of a 4 part report by Mark Benjamin on Salon.com concerning "the Christian netherworld of 'reparative therapy,' a disputed practice to convert gays and lesbians into heterosexuals."

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) a "branch of a national network of 'ministries' that claim homosexuality is a chosen and dangerous lifestyle.... successfully halted [Montgomery County, Maryland's] new sex ed curriculum, intended, among other things, to promote tolerance toward gays by treating homosexuality as natural and benign. A judge concluded the school curriculum" couldn't exclude PFOX's "views on homosexuality."

.....

"''This has national significance because Montgomery County is a wealthy, influential school district and the lid has been ripped off an agenda that has crept into schools nationwide,' declared Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America.

.....

"A PFOX pamphlet states that homosexuality is a 'developmental process not genetically determined' and can be treated with therapy. It notes that gay sex results in surging AIDS rates, drug abuse, 'gay bowel syndrome,' psychological problems and violence.

.....

"PFOX's claims about homosexuality are, according to virtually all mental health professions, wrong, bizarre and potentially dangerous. 'I can give you a short answer of where reparative therapy fits in with the modern mental health profession: It does not,' says Dr. Douglas Haldeman, president of the Association of Practicing Psychologists, a group affiliated with the American Psychological Association. 'These theories have been discredited for years.'

"Despite their dubious scientific and therapeutic standing, reparative therapy ministries, some of which accept kids and operate like a cross between churches and boot camps, largely function without oversight and licenses."

.....

"The Christian right's political agenda rests on its contention that sex is natural only among heterosexual couples. A sexual preference for partners of your own gender is therefore a psychological disorder and a sin. In the words of the Rev. John J. Smid...the executive director of Love in Action International, a reparative therapy group...people who identify themselves as gay or lesbian are in the hands of the devil.

.....

"Exodus International is the umbrella group for reparative therapy ministries, a clearinghouse for information and a referral service for counseling. The group claims over 120 ministries in the United States and Canada with links to 30 more in 17 countries."

.....

"Gay rights protesters hounded Love in Action after the parents of a 16-year-old boy, 'Zach,' sent their son to Refuge, an intensive Love in Action therapy program -- apparently against his will -- after he told them he was gay." [Zach has a blog here.]

.....

"The program specifies the exact length of haircuts and how many times men must shave each week (seven),...bars jewelry and clothing by Abercrombie and Fitch,... and [prohibits] 'campy gay/lesbian behavior and talk.' New clients are not allowed to talk to or make eye contact with anyone for the first three days. Clients have to wear pajamas to bed and if they get too cozy they 'must always have exactly one person between them.' Clients cannot keep a diary, and all their belongings are searched every morning by the 'Chain of Command.' All secular media, including music and movies, are forbidden."

.....

"James Dobson's powerful lobby, Focus on the Family, claims that 'thousands' of gays and lesbians have been changed. But statistics are hard to come by, and change is hard to measure. Many of those who have been enrolled in the ministries say conversion programs are emotionally destructive and destined to fail."

.....

"[T]he ministries fall into a regulatory blind spot."

.....

"[T]he close coordination between ex-gay groups and the religious right started in 1998, when a conglomeration of 15 religious right organizations sought new traction in the culture war, launching $600,000 in ads in major U.S. newspapers, touting the achievements of the ex-gay ministries, complete with a photo of a crowd of beaming ex-gays. Besen quotes Robert Knight, then with the Family Research Council, who called the ad campaign the 'Normandy landing in the larger cultural wars.'"

Simon Blumenthal: a "quasi-clerical" America

Here's a worthwhile revisitionation: Sidney Blumenthal's commentary on Salon.com about the 2004 election.

The election of 2004 marks the rise of a quasi-clerical party for the first time in the United States. Ecclesiastical organization has become transformed into the sinew and muscle of the Republican Party, essential in George W. Bush's reelection. His narrow margins in the key states of Florida, Iowa and Ohio, and elsewhere, were dependent upon the direct imposition of the churches. None of this occurred suddenly or by happenstance. Nor was this development simply a pleasant surprise for Bush. For years, he has schooled himself in the machinations of the religious right, and Karl Rove has used the command center of the White House as more than its Office of Propaganda.

Bush's clerisy represents an unprecedented alliance of historically anti-Roman Catholic, nativist evangelical Protestants with the most reactionary elements of the Catholic hierarchy. Preacher, priest and politician have combined on the grounds that John F. Kennedy disputed in his famous speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960. Every principle articulated by Kennedy has been flouted and contradicted by Bush: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope or ... any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials."

From the White House, Rove operated a weekly conference call with selected religious leaders. Evangelical churches handed over their membership directories to the Bush campaign for voter registration drives. According to the Washington Post, "clergy members attended legal sessions explaining how they could talk about the election from the pulpit." A group associated with the Rev. Pat Robertson advised 45,000 churches on how to work for Bush. One popular preacher alone sent letters to 136,000 pastors advising them on "non-negotiable" issues -- gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion -- to mobilize the faithful. Perhaps the most influential figure of all was the Rev. James Dobson, whose radio programs are broadcast daily on more than 3,000 stations and 80 TV stations, and whose organization has affiliates in 36 states, and this year created a political action committee to advance "Christian citizenship."

The least Jesus asks is not what the Religious Right asks

In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, verses 31-46, Jesus tells a parable in which admittance to heaven depends on a person's demonstrated ability to have done six things in life:

1) Fed the hungry
2) Gave drink to the thirsty
3) Welcomed the stranger
4) Clothed the naked
5) Cared for the sick
6) Visited prisoners

Listening to the typical conservative evangelical or, especially, Fundamentalist sermon in 10,000's of churches in America, you would seldom get the sense that Jesus will care more about the above than he will that you:

1) Remained a virgin until your wedding night
2) Supported pro-Israel foreign policy on the belief that Israel basically can't do anything wrong
3) Refrained from ever touching a member of the same sex in any but an utterly chaste manner
4) Voted for "Godly," "Bible-believing," or "values" candidates--i.e. Republicans per the Religious Right's definitions of "Godly," "Bible-believing," or "values"
5) Believed that Jesus would be returning in the sky soon, quite possibly within your lifetime
6) Kept yourself and your children from listening to "secular" music or viewing "secular" films or TV

Back in January, OkiePundit, an Oklahoma-based blogger currently taking a break from his site, discovered just how unimportant helping the needy actually is to many evangelicals and Fundamentalists, by attempting to volunteer to help the low income people that come to the Victory Christian Center's Dream Center, north of Tulsa, for assistance or recreation. His willingness to help wasn't welcome unless he answered the following questions (this is not a joke) --

"Have you kept yourself from immoral sexual activity such as fornication and adultery for at least the last 12 months?
Have you kept yourself from pornography (including movies rated R, X, or NC-17) for at least the last 12 months?
Have you kept yourself from ever practicing homosexuality or incest?
Do you pray regularly?
Are you currently living with your spouse?
Do you read the Bible regularly?"

Okie Pundit also wrote that they "wanted a personal testimony, a criminal records check, a history of my residences."

What is the Christian morality behind a system designed to limit an individual's ability to fulfill Jesus' mandates? I'll tell you: a misguided one more obedient to the societal conservatism and scapegoating at the heart of Religious Right political movement than to the words of Jesus of Nazareth.

------

So, Religious Right Watch--a political site about a political movement--leaves you with this undeniably religious passage, but invites you to consider its political implications in light of the Religious Right's concern for issues like boycotting Gay Day at Disney World and waging legal battles against the teaching of Creationism in the science classroom:

Matthew 25, beginning with verse 31...

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

    34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

    37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

    40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

    41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

    44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

    45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

    46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

David Brooks has ideas

In his New York Times column, the always effervescent and low-cal David Brooks, writes that President Bush should appoint to the Supreme Court someone who will tear down the wall of Separation between Church and State. Brook's reasoning is delicate:

As government grows and becomes more involved in health, charity, education and culture issues, it begins pushing religion out of those spheres. The Separationist doctrine leads inevitably to discrimination against religion. The state ends up punishing people who are exercising a constitutional right.

This is silliness. To the false charge that as "government grows and becomes more involved in health, charity, education and culture issues, it begins pushing religion out of those spheres," I ask: What would be bad about that? Clearly, Mr. Brooks assumes that the presence of "religion" (what do you mean, David, nuns? tax-funded copies of Dianetics?) in spheres like education is a good thing. But more importantly, his statement is simply wrong. The religious can be as active as they'd like in any sphere; they are perfectly free to establish their own programs to address issues of health, charity, education, and culture.

Of course, the real issue here is that Brooks dislikes government. But, our Constitution--a document Mr. Brooks doesn't mention in his column--charges the government to promote the general welfare. Government has an obligation to see that issues like health and education are addressed.

In the end, Brooks loses his bearings altogether: "The Separationist (sic--perhaps he meant "patriotic") doctrine leads inevitably to discrimination against religion." Inevitably? Discrimination? This is hapless thinking leading to a false conclusion that the "state ends up punishing people who are exercising a constitutional right." How does the Separation of Church and State lead to the State punishing anyone?

Mr. Brooks does not say.

Mr. Brooks seems worried, perhaps, that the free exercise of religion is going to be a jailable offense soon? Forget that our Christian supremacist President is evidence enough to the contrary, the free exercise of religion is protected by our Constitution. It would be good of the President to appoint someone who knows that.

The Christian Right is after Mike DeWine

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) has the Religious Right on his tail.  The very conservative elements that control the Republican Party want to punish him for backing the compromise that averted the so-called "nuclear option" and preserved the important Senate tradition of the filibuster.

In mid-June, the right wing claimed victory after defeating DeWine's son in the primary held to determine the Republican candidate in the August special election to replace outgoing Rep. Rob Portman. 

After the nuclear option compromise was announced, a group of conservative leaders in Ohio announced that "The process has already started" to find a primary challenger to Senator DeWine.  Also, the Family Research Council and the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values, which is officially associated with Focus on the Family, are running ads attacking DeWine.

Talk to Action

See the Talk To Action tile on the right? It leads to a site of the same name; it's in its nascent form. It will in the next several weeks evolve into something more multilayered--something that will build community.

But visit it regularly starting now. Get in on the ground floor! Go read, enjoy, and comment on Talk To Action. Religious Right Watch, at the end of the day, is essentially "just" a blog with a nice array of ancillary resources--the links, the glossary, etc. I hope it educates and enlightens and entertains. But Talk To Action will become something different: a place for all of us concerned about the abuses of the Religious Right to meet and share ideas, tactics, news, and strategy, and a place to give each other some support as we seek to translate concern into action.

Sen. Danforth: Christian Right's crusade isn't Christian

The Week's summary of Sen. John Danforth's column in The New York Times recently:

Conservative Christian often portray themselves as offering "the one authentic Christian perspective on politics," said former Republican senator John Danforth in The New York Times. Certain that they "know God's truth," the Christian Right has embarked on a mission to use government to lay the foundation for God's kingdom here on earth. For them, that means bringing back school prayer, banning stem-cell research, and crusading against gay marriage and homosexuality. But not all "people of faith" share these diverse views. In fact, there are millions of devout Christians in this country whose faith fives rise to very different convictions about how government can promote a just society. More tolerant and humble in our religious perspective, we "claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth." And we perceive but one "absolute" in Christ's message--"the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves." That commandment impels us to support stem-cell research because it offers so much hope to people suffering from dread diseases. For the same reason, we oppose amending the Constitution "in a way that would humiliate homosexuals." We also believe in the separation of church and state, because we believe that efforts to impose religion "are far more apt to divide Americans that to advance faith." No good can come from insisting that "I am on God's side and you are not," or from turning one's religious views into an angry political crusade. That isn't Christianity. It's foolishness.

Tulsa's myths parade

From yesterday's New York Times comes this editorial:

Christian creationists won too much of a victory for their own good in Tulsa, where the local zoo was ordered to balance its evolution science exhibit with a display extolling the Genesis account of God's creating the universe from nothing in six days.

A determined creationist somehow talked three of the four zoo directors, including Mayor Bill LaFortune, into the addition by arguing that a statue of the elephant-headed god Ganesh at the elephant house amounted to an anti-Christian bias toward Hinduism. After the inevitable backlash from bewildered taxpayers warning that Tulsa would be dismissed as a science backwater, the directors "clarified" their vote to say they intended no monopoly for the Adam and Eve tale but rather wanted "six or seven" creation myths afforded equal time.

There was the rub: there are hundreds of creation tales properly honored by the world's multifarious cultures, starting with the American Indian tribes around Tulsa.

You want creationism? How about the Cherokee buzzard that gouged the valleys and mountains? And why should Chinese-Americans tolerate neglect of P'an Ku and the cosmic egg at the zoo, or Norse descendants not speak up for Audhumla, the giant cow?

The futility of this exercise was emphatically made clear last week when a crowd of critics demanded reconsideration. With the speed of the Mayan jaguar sun god, zoo directors reversed themselves, realizing they had opened a Pandora's box (which see). In stumbling upon so many worthy cosmogonies, Tulsa did us all a favor by underlining how truly singular the evolution explanation is, rooted firmly in scientific demonstration. Second thoughts are a creative characteristic of Homo sapiens, and the Tulsa Zoo directors did well by theirs. They were fortunate to have Ganesh, known to true believers as the remover of obstacles and the god of harmony, on the grounds.

7+ post-invasion evangelical churches in Baghdad

According to The Washington Post, at least seven evangelical churches have been established in Baghdad since the U.S. invasion. Their efforts thus far have been focused on converting non-evangelical Christians, not Muslims.

"nature's god"

At Pat Robertson's Regent's University--or is it in his office?--hang three portraits to greet the visitor: the Mason and deist George Washington, Pat Robertson himself, and deistic rationalist Thomas Jefferson.

The Christian Right is forever claiming that our nation was founded on biblical principles to be a Christian nation. That this myth persists in the face of the stark reality that many of the nation's Founders were not Christians themselves, is testimony to the aggressiveness with which the Christian Right's leaders have spread falsehoods successfully blinding millions of Americans.

Pat Robertson, on The 700 Club, December 30, 1981:

The Constitution of the United States...is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society.

Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986:

[T]he great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians...

Numerous books by experts, preachers, academics, brilliant historians, and Constitutional scholars have been written dispelling the myth of Christianity being a significant inspiration for our nation's founding. The evidence is overwhelming and demands a verdict.

But, for today, I want to enter a lone exhibit--not in and of itself as compelling as, say, the Treaty of Tripoli (see Article 11), but I think it profound in its tangibility:

Jefferson's own hand.... Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence.

In the final version of the Declaration, which is devoid of all mention of Christianity, Jesus, the Bible, etc., there is a reference to "Nature's God."

Not "the Christian God," not "Jesus' Father," not "Our Heavenly Father," not event "mankind's God," or "our God"  -- the words used are, and the concept is, "Nature's God." The words appeal to and evoke neither Christianity nor the Bible. So un-Christian is it that if we playfully, anachronistically, view the terminology "Nature's God" through the lens of American culture today, we'd likely see (dismiss?) the term as "New Age."

It's little wonder then that the Christian Right of Jefferson's era went after him as today they go after everyone from President Clinton to Gov. Howard Dean.

*On July 4th, 1798, President of Yale, Rev. Timothy Dwight, preached that religious people can't support in the coming election "the philosophers, the atheists and the deists" like Thomas Jefferson, who was running for President. He worried that "our churches may become temples of reason" should Jefferson win the election.

*Rev. William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister, authored an anti-Jefferson tract in 1800 complaining about Jefferson's "disbelief of the Holy Scriptures; or...his rejection of the Christian Religion and open profession of Deism."

*Dr. John Mason preached that Jefferson was "a confirmed infidel."

*The New England Palladium wrote: "Should the infidel Jefferson be elected to the Presidency, the seal of death is that moment set on our holy religion...some infamous prostitute, under the title of Reason will preside...."

What did Jefferson say of these attackers? He had harsh words that resonate as strongly today as they did in his own lifetime. He wrote that the religious conservatives of his day were

"most tyrannical and ambitious.... They pant to re-establish by law, that holy inquisition, which they can now only infuse into public opinion."

Jefferson foresaw a day when all rational Americans would be Unitarians. He seemed unable to imagine a future in which "public opinion" infused with the spirit of "inquisition" would seek to subvert the Constitution (even as so many conservative Christian Americans attempt shamefully to claim it and all of its authors, including Jefferson, as their own), and subvert the Enlightenment concepts of deists like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams. Those concepts Jefferson must have thought secure--untouchable ultimately, and self-evident. After all, the governing document of the United States, our Constitution, nowhere mentions God. The Constitution demands that there will never be religious tests for public office, and Jefferson's ideals of the separation of Church and State were embraced by the day's thinkers.

But this is no longer the case. These concepts dear to Jefferson are not self-evident any longer. They are not embraced by the majority of our nation's Congressmembers, our President, or many judges. They are in danger of being forgotten and replaced by something altogether different, something anathema to the rational citizen.

(Source for the above quotes: The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness, by Isaac Kramnick & R. Laurance Moore.)