The Religious Right's Era Is Over

Time ^ | February 16, 2007 | Jim Wallis

[NYer]

As I have traveled around the country, one line in my speeches always draws cheers: "The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun." We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.

In the churches, a combination of deeper compassion and better theology has moved many pastors and congregations away from the partisan politics of the Religious Right. In politics, we are beginning to see a leveling of the playing field between the two parties on religion and "moral values," and the media are finally beginning to cover the many and diverse voices of faith. These are all big changes in American life, and the rest of the world is taking notice.

Evangelicals — especially the new generation of pastors and young people — are deserting the Religious Right in droves. The evangelical social agenda is now much broader and deeper, engaging issues like poverty and economic justice, global warming, HIV/AIDS, sex trafficking, genocide in Darfur and the ethics of the war in Iraq. Catholics are returning to their social teaching; mainline Protestants are asserting their faith more aggressively; a new generation of young black and Latino pastors are putting the focus on social justice; a Jewish renewal movement and more moderate Islam are also growing; and a whole new denomination has emerged, which might be called the "spiritual but not religious."

Even more amazing, the Left is starting to get it. Progressive politics is remembering its own religious history and recovering the language of faith. Democrats are learning to connect issues with values and are now engaging with the faith community. They are running more candidates who have been emboldened to come out of the closet as believers themselves. Meanwhile, many Republicans have had it with the Religious Right. Both sides are asking how to connect faith and values with politics. People know now that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and we are all learning that religion should not be in the pocket of any political party; it calls all of us to moral accountability.

Most people I talk to think that politics isn't working in America and believe that the misuse of religion has been part of the problem. Politics is failing to resolve the big moral issues of our time, or even to seriously address them. And religion has too often been used as a wedge to divide people, rather than as a bridge to bring us together on those most critical questions. I believe (and many people I talk with agree) that politics could and should begin to really deal with the many crises we face. Whenever that happens, social movements often begin to emerge, usually focused on key moral issues. The best social movements always have spiritual foundations, because real change comes with the energy, commitment and hope that powerful faith and spirituality can bring.

It's time to remember the spiritual revivals that helped lead to the abolition of slavery in Britain and the United States; the black church's leadership during the American civil rights movement; the deeply Catholic roots of the Solidarity movement in Poland that led the overthrow of communism; the way liberation theology in Latin America helped pave the way for new democracies; how Desmond Tutu and the South African churches served to inspire victory over apartheid; how "People Power" joined with the priests and bishops to bring down down Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos; how the Dalai Lama keeps hope alive for millions of Tibetans; and, today, how the growing Evangelical and Pentecostal churches of the global South are mobilizing to addresse the injustices of globalization.

I believe we are seeing the beginning of movements like that again, right here in America, and that we are poised on the edge of what might become a revival that will bring about big changes in the world. Historically, social reform often requires spiritual revival. And that's what church historians always say about real revival — that it changes things in the society, not just in people's inner lives. I believe that what we are seeing now may be the beginning of a new revival — a revival for justice.

The era of the Religious Right is now past, and it's up to all of us to create a new day.

[MACVSOG68]

Then from WHERE do they get their 'morals' and their 'justness'?

For some, it is their God. For others it is what makes humans distinguishable from other animals. The ability to be a moral and just person is a part of the human psyche. Whether a person acts in a moral and just manner is not necessarily dependent on fear of God, but rather an instinct or belief that we as humans have an innate responsibility to our fellow man and for those to come later. Whether or not I believe in the rewards of an afterlife, I will still have a set of moral principles.

[MACVSOG68]

Be glad they ARE yanking so hard on the reins, for without them the 'conservatives' would be indistinguishable from the 'liberals'!

Conservatism does not require a religious foundation. Conservatism accepts religion as a means of satisfaction for the masses. But with or without it, a conservative believes in reducing but not eliminating government, strong national security, personal responsibility, respect for tradition, and personal freedom. Conservatives accept change, but reject large changes because of their respect for institutions and because they almost always result in unforeseen consequences. Liberals reject this whole thesis, so religious activism is hardly protecting the principles of conservatism.

[trisham]

I really think the word "social" was misused. He really means SOCIALIST concerns. The new church doctrine is right out of the Karl Marx Manifestos.

*************

I think you are quite right.

[MACVSOG68]

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.

Political prosperity demands a moral and just set of rules. It does not require religion.

[Mr. Silverback]

As I have traveled around the country, one line in my speeches always draws cheers: "The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun."

1. Such a line draws cheers because it it exactly the sort of claptrap propaganda that would impress the benighted churchcommies who would go to a Jim Wallis lecture.

2. Let me edit that line for accuracy: "The dialogue between the Religious Right and the Secularists is over, and a new dialogue between the Religious Right and apostate churchcommies who suck up to the Secularists has now begun." There, fixed it.

[Mr. Silverback]

Can you cite me a conservative pol claiming to hold absolute truth? If you can do so, can you also tell me why the policy they were advocating at that time is bad for America?

[MACVSOG68]

Gee, I just realized I'd forgotten the quotation marks and attribution!

Indeed you did, as well as responding to my post 222. Nor is it surprising that in the original unamended Constitution, the only mention of religion is to preclude religious tests for public office. Why do you suppose that was? The Constitution was "written" by "We the People", not We the religious people".

[Cedric]

But, you took the bait which is what I was primarily interested in.

[MACVSOG68]

Please, MACVSOG68, keep flailing. It's hilarious.

And if you didn't have quotes, what would you have. Try thinking for yourself. And try for a change responding to my posts, if you are able.

[Mr. Silverback]

They interpreted it as a slam against conservatism - but from what I've read - it is a historic fact that the party in power usually loses seats in mid-term elections such as those we just had.

Though I don't address the six year itch specifically, here's an op-ed where I discuss the reasons the GOP lost and how they can come back. If the war was going better and the GOP hadn't spent like sailors, I think we would have held the Congress by a slim margin.

[Mr. Silverback]

Excellent post.

[Cedric]

The key historical fact which you are futilely attempting to alter is that this nation was founded as a Christian nation by men who were overwhelmingly Christian.

It is much more likely that the Founding Fathers never imagined the rampant secularism now upon us than that they did envision it and chose, nonetheless, to allow the kind of nonsense you're spewing to jeopardize their recently and hard won freedoms.

[MACVSOG68]

I'm not aware of these amendments being issues to Christians.

Though there are many examples, I'll give you just 3. First, why wasn't the State of Florida empowered to handle the Terri Schiavo fiasco? Second, why do Christians want family law issues, specifically marriage, taken out of the jurisdiction of the states which for over 200 years have been empowered by the 10th Amendment to handle? Third, Why do Christians feel that under the 14th Amendment, all Americans do not have the same rights to due process or equal protection of the laws, which means that some people can have the right to privacy, and some cannot.

The assumption of the Constitution is that NO ONE is moral or trustworthy--hence the separation of powers and even the people are represented, not directly voting for every law.

I don't get that out of the Constitution. It was given life by "We the People", therefore if it is a moral document or demands morality, it had to have gotten that from the people. That people have the capacity to be moral or just, does not mean they will act in that manner. Governments exist to ensure the rights of its citizens are protected, and to maintain the underpinnings of a social structure. The separation of powers and a representative government help ensure those goals.

The assumption of the Constitution is the nation's people are Christians, although the freedom of others is tolerated.

BS! The only mention of religion in the original Constitution is to ensure that no religious tests are permitted. Please direct me to such a conclusion as you just made.

The assumption of equality of all people comes directly from Christianity.

Then of course, you would deny that Christians owned slaves, and for a hundred years after the Civil War ended, denied large groups of citizens their basic rights to equality.

"Religious right" is a rather vague term; I prefer to use Christian because our various denominations oppose abortion and homosexuality from a religious doctrinal view point.

And that is fine, though you will find many differing views of all of those issues depending on the denomination.

I have no problem with the states handling these issues--that's what the Constitution says anyway. It's the Supreme court that took that away in Roe v. Wade, and the Massachusetts court that found the right to homosexual marriage in their 200 year old constitution.

Yes, the USSC in my opinion made an improper decision, and I've little doubt it will be re-looked at in the future. As for Massachusetts, that is an issue for the people of Massachusetts, not for those in other states. That's what the 10th Amendment is all about.

[MACVSOG68]

But, you took the bait which is what I was primarily interested in.

Responses you were apparently unable to counter...at least without looking up some archaic, out of context one liners. Again, try thinking for yourself.

[MACVSOG68]

The key historical fact which you are futilely attempting to alter is that this nation was founded as a Christian nation by men who were overwhelmingly Christian.

You are correct that it was founded by men who were primarily Christian, but you are wrong that it was founded as a Christian nation. In fact, as I have previously noted, the only reference to religion in the original Constitution was to restrict it's use as a test for public office. Our founding fathers clearly wanted freedom of religion, but wanted our Nation governed in a secular manner. As I have stated before, 'We are a Nation of Christians, but we are not a Christian Nation".

[capitalist229]

I see a backlash against religion and Christianity everywhere. Just look at the millions flocking to the anti-Christs Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

I think that it is the corrosive effect of unbridled affluence.

BUMP

[Sweet Hour of Prayer]

"...social movements often begin to emerge, usually focused on key moral issues. The best social movements always have spiritual foundations, because real change comes with the energy, commitment and hope that powerful faith and spirituality can bring."

Makes me think of the homeschool movement. Christians fleeing the increasingly hostile government schools. I don't this what he meant though.

[Cedric]

Sadly, but predictably, you're starting to spin yourself into the ground.

A while ago, you were frantically insisting that ours is and always was a secular government, now your laying the blame for slavery at the feet of Christians, the very people you maintain were constitutionally prohibited from imposing their religious bigotry on this nation.

[Mr. Silverback]

There is a lot wrong with this post. Let me put this right up front because it may be the most important point:

the ancient day equivalent of the immigrants and homosexuals that modern Christians like to pick on.

Hmmm...picking on immigrants?

Here's an op-ed about the relationship between Christianity and immigrant law. Notice the title--if law-breaking by a class of people results in 86 hospitals closing in a single state, are you actually saying that it's un-Christlike to think that's a bad thing? Notice how the Left uses faux Christian concerns to stifle people who merely advocate following the law. Take a look at post 19 for an excellent rebuttal of the "Jesus would give illegals amnesty" talking point.

Lastly, and most importantly, can you cite me a Christian conservative saying that illegal aliens should be mistreated, or that they should be at a disadvantage for any reason other than the fact that they are breaking the law?

I'll deal with homosexuals further down. Let's go back to the top for the rest of this:

I always thought math, history, and the wisdom of successful people were pretty important.

Successful people like, say, Ronald Regan, a social conservative? People like our Founding Fathers? Even the most secular of them, men like Jefferson and Franklin, would be regarded as wide-eyed Religious Right extremists today.

I guess a 2000 year old book with a completely warped meaning is just as good, huh?

Ah, a biblical expert. Well then, a few questions. Read on.

I'm sorry, I'm just looking for the part of the Bible where Jesus starts a war on drugs and loathes, criminilizes, and condemns "sinners" to social alienation.

Can you name me a passage where Jesus or any of His disciples defines the role of government and the church's relation to it? (Hint: there is one, arguably two, this is not a trick question.)

All I find is that all his friends were prostitutes and tax collectors

1. Where did Jesus call for the repeal of Jewish or Roman laws against prostitution?

2. Can you cite me any writing by a Founder that advocates repealing laws against prostitution or any other sin that was outlawed at that time?

the ancient day equivalent of the immigrants and homosexuals that modern Christians like to pick on.

Ah, now let's talk about homsexuals. Have you ever wondered why the Religious Right doesn't have any groups to counter burglary or gluttony but they have groups that counter gay rights? Well, when was the last time you came across a well-funded lobbying effort on behalf of burglars? When was the last time you heard someone say that if a parent wants to teach their children why they shouldn't steal, that parent must be motivated by hatred?

If the people claiming Christianity acted like Jesus did, religion would be a fine way to rule.

1. If people, any people could act like Jesus, we wouldn't have needed Him to come down here and die on a cross.

2. Can you cite for me an example of an American politician telling people they should vote for him because he's a Christian? There actually are a few, but the ones I can think of are all libs, like Ford running those "Vote for me I go to church" ads in Tennessee last year, or Jimmy Carter's 1980 ad where he actually said people should vote for him because he prayed and read the Bible daily.

Got any GOP types who've done that? If so, do you think that you could (if you had the research time) prove that even 5% of GOP pols campaign on their relationship with Jesus? If you couldn't prove that, then why should we care that some tiny percentage of one party makes a stupid argument? Shouldn't we focus on the arguments from reason the other 95% are making?

[Mr. Silverback]

I particularly like his point about the DEM's politicalization of religion by their obligatory photo ops at black churches and singing with Sunday gospel choirs.

Or Hillary saying Giuliani would have locked up Jesus, or that the House immigration bill would have locked up Jesus, etc., etc.