MEDIEVAL "MORALITY" IS ALIVE AND WELL

Take these words from the Citizens For Community Values which is based, not surprisingly, in Cincinnati, Ohio:

“"Soft-Core" pornography is "mere nudity" which is protected by the First Amendment. "Soft-Core" pornography is not prosecuted by law enforcement even though it is more harmful than hard-core pornography.”
(Citizens for Community Values, Pornography, http://www.ccv.org/ccv-red-Issues-Porn.htm)

Disagreeing about the application of the First Amendment, interestingly, is the Christian Coalition of New Mexico, which stated at its Web site (that no longer exists at time of writing):

“Although difficult if not impossible to prohibit pornography on a national basis ..., individual communities should be provided the legal right to set limits based on majority consensus on its definition. There is no reason to presume that nudity is protected by the Constitution.” (Christian Coalition of New Mexico, Pornography, http://www.swcp.com/~ccnm/porn2.htm )

“And while you can still find a lot of windmills and such, the moral fortitude that distinguished the Dutch The Religious Right's Plan Against Nudism in America Resistance is sadly lacking in 21st century Holland. Consider that full nudity is common on Dutch television after 9 p.m....”
( Tom Neven, The Low Country Sinks Lower,http://www.family.org/fofmag/pp/a0016298.html )

And last and probably worst, read the American Family Association’s infamous direct attack on naturists, particularly Christian naturists, on February 26, 2001:

“You can be assured AFA will continue to offend homosexuals, pornographers, Hollywood media moguls, Madison Avenue ad execs, and yes, the "Christian naturists" through its vocal opposition to those things which are injurious to the health of the family.”
(Paul Chaney, American Family Association, AFA Offends “Christian” Nudists, http://www.afa.net/culture/pc022601.asp )

It isn’t just the human body that they fear. A seething resentment of individual choice, i.e., autonomy, runs pervasively through most. Indeed, Theonomists (examined further below) often contrast the term “theonomy” against “autonomy” as being its opposite and its only real alternative.

Family Research Council, the political organization closely tied to Focus on the Family, published this in the June 1995 issue of Family Policy:

“The most stunning part of the [Beijing Women’s Conference] Platform is its pronouncement that women have a 'human right' to control their own reproduction.”
(Ellen Lukas, Family Policy, “Beijing’s Aftermath”, Family Research Council, June 1995 )

James Dobson writes the following, again in his July 1996 letter to supporters:

“Tragically, the words written by Supreme Court Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter in the Casey decision stand in stark contrast to that historic acknowledgment of God. They said, ‘At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’”

Liberty of conscience is a “tragedy”? Telling...

Just when most Americans have come to take their Constitutional freedoms for granted, and to rest assured that the religious persecutions by despotic sectarian governments are part of America’s fading colonial past, the truth is quite the opposite: The Dark Ages are very much alive, very healthy indeed, and are already disturbingly influential in American politics, including Congress and state legislatures.

Take the following January 1997 article from the Christian Coalition of Brevard County, Florida: “A Christian nation is based on the principle that civil government ought to be founded on the moral laws found in the Bible....This is the true path to building a Christian nation. We should not advocate an ecclesiocracy - a nation run by the Church, but a theocracy - a nation ruled by God and God's laws.”
(Jay Rogers, Christian Coalition of Brevard County, http://www.forerunner.com/ccbc/X0003_Christian_nation.html )

And in July 1996, Focus on the Family president James Dobson wrote in his letter to supporters: “In effect, the scriptural principles which our founding fathers incorporated must again be brought to bear on every aspect of life, including education, government and law.” The Conservative Caucus asks this in a questionnaire to Virginia gubernatorial candidates: “LAWS SHOULD REFLECT BIBLICAL REALITY"
Q3. Do you fully support your state's statutes criminalizing homosexual conduct?”
(http://www.conservativeusa.org/candqest.htm )

In their own words, spokespersons of some pretty high profile political organizations have explicitly stated that “Biblical law” should be civil laws as well, to be imposed upon everyone. So, what would “Biblical law” look like in civil government? Opinions differ, but they differ more in the means of punishment than in the criteria for what to criminalize or oppress.

AT THE IDEOLOGICAL CORE: THE MOST EXTREME p> The best place to establish proof that most Religious Right groups are extremely hostile to individual freedom is to start with the ideology of their most extreme faction: the Christian Reconstructionists. Other terms that they use to identify themselves are “Theonomists,” or less frequently, “Puritans.” Yes, there are self-styled Puritans today, every bit as regressive as the Puritans whose intolerance for theological differences among themselves splintered them throughout colonial America during the 17th century.

DEFINING THE "THEONOMISTS"

The Theonomists are the full-scale Taliban wing of the Religious Right. In the words of Jay Rogers, now quoted for the second time, “We are not looking for a "voice a the table" nor are we seeking "equal time" with the godless promoters of pornography, abortion, safe-sodomy subsidies, socialism, etc. We want them silenced and punished according to God's Law-Word....“We want civil government to punish evil doers according to biblical sanctions. We want all moral laws of the Old Testament to be enforced according to biblical standards... . “Capital crimes against the family include rebellion to parents, homosexuality and adultery. “
(Jay Rogers, Theonomy FAQ, http://www.forerunner.com/theofaq.html)

An important key phrase is “God’s Law-Word.” This unusual term is seldom used by anyone other than Theonomists. Remember it as you read this report. Other unusual key terms usually used mainly by Theonomists, as well as non-Theonomist proponents of a somewhat less extreme religious regime, are the “dominion mandate” and “cultural mandate.” Based on a strained interpretation of Genesis 1:28 in the Bible, it basically means “seek to control the world.”

The leading Reconstructionist think tank is California’s Chalcedon Foundation (www.chalcedon.edu). Founded by the late Rousas J. Rushdoony, Chalcedon is, in its own words, “an educational institution. It supports the efforts of Christians and Christian organizations to implement the vision of Christian civilization.”

The foundation’s journal, the Chalcedon Report, is comprehensive and lists among its contributing authors some disturbingly familiar names: Larry Pratt, who heads Gun Owners of America; Howard Phillips, heading the Conservative Caucus and the inaccurately named political party “the Constitution Party”; and Gary North, originator of many of the societal collapse scenarios that some feared would accompany Y2K.

Not surprisingly, Chalcedon leaders tend to have little sympathy for naturists. Contributor Rev. William Einwechter wrote this simultaneous slam at naturists and pluralism in October 1998:

“For Monsma, true liberty requires the state to be religiously neutral and to enforce a pluralistic order that allows for "mosques as well as churches, nudist camps as well as Bible camps, hateful, racist literature as well as the writings of a C. S. Lewis or a Martin Luther King, Jr."
(William Einwechter, Chalcedon Report, http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98oct/einwechter.shtml)

BIZARRE BELIEFS EMBRACED BY MANY

Christian Reconstructionism is a theological offspring of the more extreme forms of Calvinism. Here is a sampling of the fantastic beliefs held by many Reconstructionists:

Human beings are totally unable to desire God; they instead “hate God with every fiber of their being.” Only God, if and when he chooses, can regenerate one from this state of “total depravity.” Some argue that infants are born already hating God. God has chosen since the beginning of time whom he will save and regenerate; they are referred to as the “Elect.” The remainder are condemned to Hell, unable to even want to follow God.

People who are not “Christian” (as they define it) are utterly incapable of understanding anything spiritual or theological (1 Corinthians 2:14, misinterpreted). In other words, they need not listen to anyone outside their circles. Even this highly critical article was written by a “nobody” whose ideas matter nothing to them.

Many, perhaps most believe that God deliberately arranged for Adam and Eve to sin, a doctrine called “supralapsarianism.” God planned it, indeed forced it, even though Adam and Eve must nevertheless suffer the punishment for it.

Needless to say, these are not your ordinary churchgoing people. Neither do they fit the stereotype of the uneducated backwater hick. One such person, astoundingly and scarily enough, is a real nuclear physicist. Many are physicians. Some are philosophy professors in accredited universities. Extremely theologically learned, their devotion to Biblical study is unparalleled in fervor. Failing to see the forest because of the trees, this intense scrutiny has led to has led to some shocking interpretations like those listed above. Indeed, such views are very controversial within Christendom itself and are often vehemently criticized by other Christian sects. The fact that these are not ordinary Christian ideas suggests that these people are unlikely to be your ordinary political leaders as well. Bizarre beliefs tend to lead to bizarre government, especially when they feel they don’t have to listen to anyone else.

THREE ROADS TO DOMINION

To be fair to the Reconstructionists, they are by no means unanimous behind any plan to unleash a religious dictatorship from a mighty central government. While some Religious Right organizations do favor using the heavy hand of federal government when the opportunity beckons, two other methods are more prominent.

Many seek to grant unrestricted power to state and/or local governments; far-right legal scholars envision a plan that would allow states and localities to disregard the entire Bill of Rights. Touted as “state sovereignty,” what they mean by “limited government” is a federal government stripped of its power to rectify state-perpetrated injustices. This state-nation tactic has wide appeal among non-Reconstructionist political oppressors (and some misguided Libertarians) as well. More on that later.

Others, somewhat surprisingly, are political Libertarians. Enchanted with Libertarian goals such as dismantling public education, Libertarian Reconstructionists believe that their worldview will eventually prevail once public schools that aid and abet “evil, antinomian” ideas like respect and tolerance are eliminated. In it for the long haul, these Reconstructionists envision achieving a Theonomic society only when a majority of our citizens learn to want one — an ethical if undesirable strategy.

TRACING THE INFLUENCE

As we proceed to identify Theonomy’s organizational bases, we can trace the influence of Reconstructionism to some surprisingly high and influential places in United States politics. It is important to remember, however, that not every individual or organization with Reconstructionist ties agrees with full implementation of Old Testament moral law. But that disclaimer does not likely make them any less dangerous to individual freedom.

INFLUENCE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Forget the “stealth tactics” of the early 1990s; Republican Party machinery in the 21st century is falling into the increasingly firm grip of 11th century ideology. Here are just a few facts:

Another Chalcedon contributing author, John Stoos, is a Republican political strategist, forrmer vicepresident of the now-theocratic California Republican Assembly (CRA), contributor to CRA’s California Republican newspaper, and served as Chief Consultant for Republican state senator Tom McClintock (R-CA).

The California Republican Assembly’s statement of beliefs is explicitly sectarian and hints at theocracy:

“Judeo-Christian Foundation: We believe in the guiding force of moral law as expressed by the Judeo- Christian ethic and contained in the Holy Scriptures of these historic faiths.”
(CA Republican Assembly, What We Believe, http://www.ca-ra.org/what_we_believe.htm )

The National Federation of Republican Assembles (www.nf-ra.org) follows a similar religious platform. Another Reconstructionist organization, the National Reform Association (www.natreformassn.org) is long-standing and is currently staffed by many of the same people found in other Reconstructionist groups.

Republican Congressman Joseph Pitts (R-PA) and state representative Samuel Rohrer (R-Berks, PA) cancelled November 16 speaking engagements at a National Reform Association conference, after receiving negative media attention, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Then there is the Center for the Advancement of Paleo-Orthodoxy (http://capo.org), based in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Listing several Reconstructionists among its fellows, one Senior Fellow listed is none other than Marvin Olasky, currently popular author and former advisor to President Bush. Finally, it’s hard not to notice that Religious Right groups almost unanimously support Republican political candidates.

INFLUENCE IN THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

If you are looking for a who’s who among Religious Right activists, look no farther than Coalition on Revival (http://reformation.net). COR’s home page promotes (here’s that term again) the “cultural mandate.”

Only slightly less explicit in its Theonomic intent, COR document The Christian World View of Law states in paragraph 26, “We affirm that principles expressed in the Old Testament, whether or not repeated in the New Testament, apply to civil law today unless those principles are limited by their immediate context or by other scriptures to circumstances not existing today, or unless those principles are abrogated by subsequent scripture”

Signers of the 1986 Manifesto for the Christian Church include leaders of such Religious Right organizations as Jerry Rieger (President, Family Research Council, 1986), Donald Wildmon (President, American Family Association), D. Jame Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries), Colonel Doner (Christian Action Network); well-known creationscience leaders Richard Bliss (Institute for Creation Research) and Duane Gish (Institute for Creation Research and public debater), and Reconstructionist leaders such as the late Rousas J. Rushdoony (Chalcedon Foundation), and Gary DeMar (American Vision).

Other noteworthy facts: American Family Association of Ohio’s home page (www.afaohio.org) links directly to Coalition on Revival website materials, and the co-chair of COR’s Law Committee is none other than Michael Farris, President of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

TO PACK A KANGAROO COURT

If Religious Right groups are indeed extremely hostile to personal freedom (and I hope I have demonstrated this indisputably), then one logical tactic toward curtailing it would be to disable or corrupt the American people’s last line of lawful defense against despotic goverment: the Constitution and the federal courts.

The truth is yes, indeed, Religious Right groups, every one of them, have made it a top priority to pack the federal courts with “bad cops” disdainful of individual freedom and the Constitution of the United States.

Go to any Religious Right organization’s Web site, and it’s on front page after front page: “Bush’s judicial nominations,” “judges,” “judges,” and more judges. This is nothing short of a full scale drive to sabotage our last legal recourse against government injustice.

And, they appear to have a cooperative White House. On November 20th, Tim Goeglein, from the White House Office of Public Liaison, told the Free Congress Foundation (an organization that advocates giving immense power to government) that one of the President’s “three main goals” is appointing “good judges” (sic) to the bench.

HERE COMES THE JUDGE

President Bush has promised to appoint “strict constructionists” to the federal courts. He has pointed to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as a model for strict constructionists.

But to anyone who understands Constitutional law, their “strict constructionism” is selective, convenient and self-serving rather than consistent and principled. Antonin Scalia himself opines in the Supreme Court’s Erie v. Pap decision: "The traditional power of government to foster good morals ( bonos mores ), and the acceptability of the traditional judgment (if Erie wishes to endorse it) that nude public dancing itself is immoral, have not been repealed by the First Amendment. "

There it is, in his own words: unconstitutionally vague and sometimes subjective ideas such as “good morals” should be good enough “cause” for government to override our Constitutional rights. A consistent strict constructionist would fantasize no such poorly-defined exception to the First Amendment.

It may be confusing at first to hear far-right advocates speak approvingly of “freedom” and “liberty,” when it seems that all of their energy is directed against freedom and liberty.

The explanation is that they have most peculiar (and self-contradictory and incoherent) definition of “freedom.” Religious Right idol justice Robert Bork writes in Tradition and Morality in Constitutional Law (sound familiar?):

“The liberty to make laws is what constitutes a free people. The makers of our Constitution... provided wide powers to representative assemblies and ruled only a few subjects off limits by the Constitution.”

Peculiar idea of “freedom,” indeed, one that no sane person’s common sense would suspect. This means, in effect, “the liberty to take away people’s freedoms is what constitutes a free people.” Clearly selfcontradictory.

Perhaps this confusion might explain the seemingly impossible yet unexpectedly common phenomenon of “Libertarians for Bork” — which makes about as much sense as “Anarchists for Stalin.”

Or perhaps more likely, their extreme aversion to central government has lured them into welcoming the Trojan horse of dual federalism and “state sovereignty” — apparently believing that state government is much more trustworthy than the federal government.

And a deadly Trojan horse it is. In the words of two of state sovereignty’s proponents:

“If in fact the framers of the [14th] Amendment intended to apply the Bill of Rights against the states, why didn’t any of them say so?..."It is not clear precisely what would follow from Amar’s effort to revivify the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Here is a question to ponder: If, as Professor Amar insists, that clause incorporated the Bill of Rights and gave us the modern conception of individual liberty...”
(Michael Uhlmann, First Things, “Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction,” http://www.firstthings.com/ ftissues/ft9904/uhlmann.html )

“The incorporation doctrine, a fantasy in any case, reaches its height of absurdity and impropriety when applied to the religion clauses."
(Lino Graglia, “City of Boerne v. Florez: Usurpation of Democracy?”, Claremont Institute, 1998)

For readers who are not Constitutional scholars, “incorporation doctrine” above refers to the enforcement of the Bill of Rights against state-level violations of it.

WHAT’S IN A NAME? SOMETIMES, PLENTY

I was already suspicious when President Bush abolished the role of the American Bar Association in reviewing possible judicial nominations, a move that looks strangely like abolishing the American Medical Association’s role in the medical profession.

But the group that President Bush has de facto chosen to replace the ABA’s role ought to come as no surprise at all if you have been digesting this article:

The Federalist Society. Its members range from honest conservative legal theorists who make some valid points, to unscrupulous agenda-driven extremists, and everything in between. However, the co-chairmen of its Board of Visitors are the aforementioned Robert Bork as well as Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. Among its other board members are Edwin Meese, whom Ronald Reagan appointed to head up the Meese Commission’s kangaroo “study” of pornography that culminated in 1986. Befitting frenetic bodyphobia, Meese once supported a bill that would have made it a federal crime to sell a minor a magazine that showed an uncovered female breast.

(As I was saying, these people have not learned one single thing about human body acceptance.) Skewed thinking tends to produce skewed “studies.”

But prudery of some of its leaders aside, one overarching philosophy of the Society is, to varying extents, insulate state governments from federal “interference.” In fairness, not all Society members advocate excusing states from honoring the Bill of Rights, but the idea is definitely kicked around. Richard Willard writes in the Society’s Criminal Law newsletter:

“There are also many ways in which federal law intrudes on the criminal justice system at the state level, including: the incorporation doctrine, which makes the Bill of Rights apply to state courts... I believe that all of these laws should be reformed in order to allow greater authority to the states.”
(Richard Willard, Crime is an Important Federal Issue, http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/criminallaw/cl020101.htm )

FACING THE FACTS

The facts are there. The pieces fit. The musty motive makes sense. And it has been documented above. Fact: Religious Right political groups are as intensely bodyphobic today as fifty years ago. Incredible as it sounds, to them the human body is still “obscene” and “immoral.”

Fact: Religious Right groups likewise tend to be intensely resentful of individual freedom. To varying degrees, they still believe that their version of their religion should take the form of civil law.

Fact: A true “American Taliban” indeed exists. Theonomic Christian Reconstructionism boasts a comprehensive theological framework and exerts disproportionate influence in both the Republican Party and in Religious Right groups.

Fact: One obstacle that stands between personal freedom and theocratic government microregulation of our personal lives is the United States Constitution.

Fact: Like any law or laws, the Constitution is only as good as the judges who rule upon it and enforce it. To cripple the Constitution without openly abolishing it, one must pack the courts with agenda-driven judges who have little to no regard for Constitutional rights and individual liberties.

Fact: Religious Right groups, every Religious Right group, have made it a top, foremost, paramount priority to see to it that the federal courts are indeed packed with such Constitutional scofflaws.

Fact: There exists today a cooperative White House that has discarded the advice of the American Bar Association regarding judicial nominations in favor of that of a cabal of legal theorists who tend to be much more sympathetic to state government power than to individual rights.

These are the facts, no if, ands, or butts.. But if you don’t believe me, or think my Taliban comparison is too trite or too propagandish, perhaps, you will believe columnist Tony Snow, himself an archconservative Republican:

“The Taliban Republicans take a darker view of human nature... They look upon government as the ultimate street cleaner and see nothing untoward in declaring the moral equivalent of martial law: Jail the sinners, elevate the saints, establish the rule of the righteous, and do it all before the next sunrise.”
(Tony Snow, Pointed to a destination called ‘nowhere,’ http://www.jewishworldreview.com/tony/snow07169 9.asp)

David Scott is a journalist who grew up in the evangelical movement and now reports on its politically-connected leaders in the United States.