« They're Not "Real" Parents ... but Don't be Offended | Main | Drink Up! »

May 31, 2007

Moral Majority: R.I.P.

Pastor Chuck Baldwin has a new piece out in which he asks whether Jerry Falwell's death was the death of the Religious Right and calls on the Religious Right to learn from its mistakes and redirect its efforts in the future.

The first thing that caught my eye was that even though he has a pretty good idea of where the Religious Right has gone wrong in its political efforts, Baldwin truly does not understand why Jerry Falwell was hated by so many people. His explanation:

In many respects, Jerry Falwell was the heart and soul of the Religious Right, which is why many people hated him so much. They fully understood that without Jerry Falwell there was no Religious Right. And make no mistake about it: liberals hate the Religious Right.

It was the Religious Right that dared to stand in the gap against a secularist/amoral juggernaut that sought to eviscerate America's moral culture, not to mention our Christian heritage. And it was Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority that made the Religious Right a force to be reckoned with, respected, and ignored at one's own political peril.

Obviously, I can't speak for "liberals" because I'm not liberal (unless you're comparing me to a right-winger), but based on what I've observed, I do not believe that liberals "hate" the Religious Right. They certainly do have strong feelings about what the Religious Right has been trying to do, however, and so do I. If you look at the precise wording Baldwin uses you can see very clearly what has people upset with the Religious Right - or to be more accurate, the Moral Majority:

…a secularist/amoral juggernaut that sought to eviscerate America's moral culture, not to mention our Christian heritage.

Obviously, it's all about religion-based legislation of morality – they want to impose their particular brand of religion-based morality on those of us who do not share their religion-based ideas about morality. That is not to say that "liberals" and others who oppose the Religious Right are immoral – or even amoral. For example, many of the so-called "Secular Progressives" value human life so highly that they oppose the death penalty and war, advocate for a healthy safety net so as to care for the weak and poor among us, work to build an inclusive society in which all citizens can pursue happiness and find personal fulfillment, and press for a healthy planet that is capable of nurturing healthy human beings. To many of us, the Religious Right's stance on these issues is immoral. The difference between legislating their position and legislating the "secular progressive" position is that one is an unconstitutional imposition of religion and the other is sound public policy based on sound science. Jerry Falwell's movement did indeed create a "force to be reckoned with," but it was a damaging force.

Baldwin goes on from there to give Falwell a lot more credit than the man deserves with regards to the current presidential campaign:

In fact, Jerry's passing, and a fading Religious Right, has already had a significant influence upon the upcoming presidential election. Does anyone really believe that Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani would openly and boldly campaign as a "pro-choice" candidate if the Religious Right was as politically powerful as it once was? In virtually every Republican primary since the creation of the Moral Majority back in 1979, no candidate could expect to obtain the Republican nomination who did not pass the Religious Right's litmus test (at least in rhetoric) of being pro-life and anti-gay marriage.

Not anymore. Today the Republican frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, is running on a platform that is pro-abortion, pro-gay unions, and pro-gun control. Yet, at this moment, the nomination appears to be his to lose.

The thing Baldwin doesn't seem to realize is that Falwell has only been dead a couple of weeks, but Giuliani has been the frontrunner for quite awhile even though Falwell made it very clear, beginning before Giuliani even announced, that he would not support his candidacy. That didn't keep Giuliani from rising to first place among the Republican hopefuls. In fact, he has risen to first place despite the rabid opposition of James Dobson and Richard Viguerie, who said if he won the nomination, it would be "time to put the GOP out of its misery." So much for that "force to be reckoned with."

Baldwin may have a point when he says:

Accordingly, it is a very real and distinct possibility that the Republican Party will go into the 2008 presidential election without the support of the Religious Right for the first time in nearly thirty years. However, this prospect not only dooms Republican chances for a presidential victory, it also dooms the Religious Right as a major player in presidential politics.

Baldwin really can't look to the facts to make himself feel better, so he turns to faith to help him and his beleaguered readers out. Pointing to the "providence of God" that brought Falwell's Moral Majority into existence at the same time Ronald Reagan was campaigning for president, he implies that God will step in to save the day.

He also observes the Republican Party's lack of respect for the Religious Right, which he compares to an abused spouse:

Nothing illustrates the GOP's lack of respect for Jerry Falwell than the list of no-shows at his funeral. Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sending a low-level White House aide to Dr. Falwell's funeral? Did you notice, too, that none of the GOP presidential contenders showed up at his funeral? In fact, there were virtually no national Republican leaders present at his funeral. This, for the man that did more--for a longer period of time in modern memory --than any other single human being to elect Republican candidates to the White House. You see what I mean by a one-sided, abusive relationship?

Baldwin calls on the Religious Right to learn from the mistakes it made in becoming too ambitious for power, compromising in order to buddy up to the Republican Party. His description of the two parties isn't a pretty one:

It has been money, not principles, that has always been at the heart of Republican and Democratic politics. Republicans have historically been the puppets of big-business, while Democrats have been the puppets of big-labor. It was Ronald Reagan who gave the GOP a semblance of righteousness. It was only a façade. Unfortunately, this misplaced trust allowed the Religious Right to be totally and thoroughly beguiled by conservative phonies George Bush I and II. At the end of the day, money, not righteousness, is in charge of both major parties. It's time that Christian conservatives understood that.

Baldwin closes by calling on the Religious Right to focus its energies on electing representatives who will value and protect the Constitution, and on this point I think we can all find room for agreement. The attacks on the Constitution under the Bush Administration have both the right and the left pretty freaked out. If the Religious Right is ready to take on issues like warrantless wiretapping, habeas corpus, separation of powers, signing statements, DNA databases, Carnivore surveillance, Internet filtering, Total Information Awareness, and prisoner abuse, and will set aside its efforts to legislate morality based on their religion, then I'm willing to work with them - my fellow Americans - to protect that which makes our debate possible.

If the Religious Right ultimately heeds Baldwin's call and abandons Falwell's Moral Majority to pursue true Constitutional liberty in this country, then Falwell's death may have marked one of the happiest days in American history. I certainly hope that is the case.

Posted by Becky at May 31, 2007 03:51 PM