Washblog

Understanding the activities of the religious right is difficult. It takes you into places you would rather not visit.   It's not something you can do casually, without reservation. The concept of religious liberty is deeply rooted in the American psyche, and there is no doubt that singling out a particular religious philosophy has a long track record in the history of world as the first step to pogroms, bloodbaths and assertions of divinely ordained superiority.  This was one of the reasons Jefferson and Madison determined church and state are best left separate.

Even more dangerous, and the reason we can't remain silent, is this group asserts the perceived inferiority and unworthiness of whole groups of American citizens. Falwell, Robertson and any number of their kind are easily Googled for their statements as to which Christians they deem unworthy. Their feelings toward non-Christians are even less charitable. Ken Hutcherson and Joe Fruiten in our own state are eagerly waiting to extend second-class citizenship to vast numbers of Washingtonians based on gender, religion and sexual orientation.

The fact that a political movement has co-opted a specific type of religious group is not widely understood. Most people know something is not right. It stirs deep, disturbing feelings of unquiet in us.  We lack the language to describe what we sense. Most of us, valuing our own faiths, won't touch this issue with a ten-foot pole. This leaves the scrutiny of these groups to the ivory towers of Cornell's Theocracy Watch, for instance, where professors of Religion and Philosophy sound, "one if by land and two if by sea", and we on the opposite shore ... are largely asleep and unaffected except by a simmering sense of unease.

We confuse our language, we conflate terms. We use the word "fundamentalist" to describe people of faith who may be fundamental in their thought processes.  I have attended many land use hearings populated by fundamentalists for the environment. Fundamentalism is not a religion -- it is a way of thinking.  Brook no quarter; take no prisoners; kill them all - let God sort them out.  Not all religious fundamentalists support the idea of their church's involvement in circles of political influence. (Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of the Nazarene come to mind.)  We try to use the term evangelical.  Yet I am on the mailing list of some wonderful evangelical groups.  Faithful America for one, Sojourners, for another.  We want to honor the legacy of faith in America.  Faith brought us Abolition, faith brought us Martin Luther King. Faith blesses our soldiers and our daily bread. Faith has played an important part of helping, learning and caring in our history.

Faith was honored by our founders. Jefferson and Madison conceived of both government and religion remaining in their respective arenas by constructing a "wall of separation".  That concept, now under attack, is portrayed as being anti-religion. It needs to be celebrated as one of the most pro-religious doctrines conceived in the history of governments: politics and politicians do not get to meddle in the doctrines of our religious institutions. The establishment clause of the first amendment ensures none of your money will pay for the promotion of anyone else's religious beliefs ensuring minimal hard feelings as we encourage and support numerous religious traditions. Religious groups from Seventh Day Adventist to Methodists have in their statements of faith full support for the separation of church and state, yet when you ask an individual member of either of these religions about this doctrine their response is frequently confused and incorrect. The right has successfully twisted the argument.

We have legislators who are sworn to uphold the laws of the land openly declaring they are "against the separation of church and state" while gladly accepting their paychecks and turning their back on their oath of office. They remain unchallenged, or even above feeling the need to respond to the one or two intrepid people who challenge them on this issue. The right political machine has transmuted the statement "separation of church and state" into having the popular meaning "separation of morality from government" which, of course, everyone is against. It is also not what "separation of church and state" means. There is no force in the universe that can separate a person of conviction from their morality. Those of weak moral character have always been influenced by the promise of power or money.

We have rich language to honor the monumental contributions of faith in our traditions and history. We almost entirely lack a vocabulary to describe anti-social and destructive elements of religion. We have to whisper this conversation only to people we know well. We refuse to openly acknowledge the human suffering created through dogmatic and inflexible religious ideologies of inequality, shame and unworthiness. I would go so far as to say the discussion is very nearly taboo in our culture, except in academic circles. Politicians are loathe to mention it out of fear of suffering accusations of being anti- religion. You can't call your Representative and gain an audience to talk about it. I've tried.  

People have forgotten corrupted faith brought the Salem witch trials. Faith and racism brought us the Christian Identity movement, tracked as a racist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, growing in number and force of presence in the state of Washington. Faith brought us Jim Jones and the massacre in Guyana, David Koresch and the Branch Davidians and the Bagwan in Antelope, Oregon. Faith brought us "God Hates Fags."  Faith brought us 9/11. It is this element of destruction and harm caused by faith that is so difficult for us to understand and acknowledge. Steeped in religious freedom and tolerance, we cannot process the question or contradiction of destructive religion.  We sigh and roll over. Better not mentioned.

I suspect political strategists architected preemptive protection for the sedition they intended to encourage in targeted faith groups.  I envision their solution went something like this: if someone should question the activities of the religious groups we plan to mobilize --  attack the questioner full on and accuse them of being against religion.  No American will be able to tolerate being accused of harboring anti-religious sentiments.

It's been several years now the accusations of "wars on religion" or being "against Christianity" have been thrown out to silence critics. It has largely worked. People are afraid to mention or even ask what these groups are doing, they don't now have the language they need to talk about it, so they avoid the question altogether. It is political and social suicide to mention it. Believe me, I've tried. But our unease grows.

What we are seeing is the result of over 20 years of a political movement that found a willing host in certain religions whose basic philosophy was amenable to the hybridization. The word for this grafted political/religious chimera is dominionism.   Dominionism seeks to create a Theocratic Christian nation. Dominionism tells us unbridled consumption of our natural resources is our religious manifest destiny. Dominionism tells us all people are not equal.  Dominionism is God's will on earth.  Dominionists politick. Dominionists take no prisoners. Dominionists are block votes controlled by autonomous pastors receiving their marching orders from loosely affiliated national organizations of the religious right. Generally, the heads of dominionist churches are not answerable to any higher authority.  There is no oversight body in most of the churches that are dominionist. The pastors are lords and masters of whatever empire they can build with their mandatory tithes and fire and brimstone. They frequently operate outside of the laws, flaunting their power and influence and commanding, sometimes grandiose, empires of wealth. Mobilize this group, and you can turn an election. (Almost... in this state, and with their active policy of "sheep stealing" - coercing people of other churches to join their group -- and "stealth evangelism" - participating in many local community based programs to fish for  converts -- they continue to grow their numbers.)

No one in the government is checking this abuse of power.  The present government is a partial source of this power.  Our government is not investigating the politicking and abuse of faith-based and community initiative monies being funneled into these groups. Our government sees a larger threat in the anti-war activities of the Quakers, or a lone Episcopal minister suggesting the immorality of war. If you want to attempt an interesting exercise, try tracking every bit of faith-based and community initiative money in your area.   There is no place you can call and receive information as to how much money has entered your community and where it has gone. The Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives has created a structure where gathering information is nearly impossible, and accountability has evaporated.  

Charles Kimball (Th.D., Harvard) is an ordained Baptist minister and professor of religion at Wake Forest University. In Dr. Kimball's book,  When Religion Becomes Evil, Harper 2002, he explores a very complex issue: religious corruption. Religious corruption is seen as the operation of a faith tradition for amassing power, coercive influence and predatory behavior over its members and the culture.  He succinctly lays out the five signs that signal a corrupted religion:

1. Absolute Truth Claims


2. Blind Obedience


3. Establishing the "Ideal" Time


4. The End Justifies Any Means


5. Declaring Holy War

These five elements are all manifested in the dominionist churches. They are also easily recognized in the fundamentalist Islamic religion.

The YOUs and MEs of the world have a closely held belief that we are willing and able to sit down at the table and negotiate with someone who holds a different perspective. This presumption is anathema to a dominionist. Because we lack the language or understanding of the phenomenon, and because we have been browbeaten into thinking we have alienated people of faith, we fail to know what we are up against.   We have wasted countless hours thinking we can come to an understanding or a compromise, when the very structure of dominionism does not allow it.

We think we are reaching out to understand, include and craft a compromise with a conservative person of faith. They think we are trying to tempt them in a Satanic misdirection. We are to them, at best, people ignorant of REAL faith attempting to prevent them from restoring God's Kingdom on earth. At worst, we are the real minions of Satan, and their time with us is a test of faith provided by God.  

They control public meetings, shift agendas, drive reasonable community members out of participating by seeing to it the time runs into the wee hours of the night. They endlessly revisit decisions. Their job is not to reason with institutions. If they share their real agenda, they would be shut out so they NEVER do. Their agenda, simply put: to turn the target of their attention into a Christian institution (as defined by them), or to disable it so it can no longer perform its function and all reasonable people abandon it. Their war is a secret only for the initiated. Any concession by an institution or individual will never placate them, for their total agenda is the ruination of a secular government and the establishment of a Christian nation.  A concession merely means they have gained a little ground in their all out war against anything not "them".  The common target for their local attacks are now libraries and schools as well as a coordinated state wide effort to limit the civil rights and liberties of gay and lesbian Washingtonians.   I suspect with the Cowlitz Casino proposal, the land rights group will deliver this block to the GOP under the guise of the morally superior position of limiting gambling. Formula: create a moral hub-bub + promise another victory for Gods army = deliver of a block of votes.  

Their beliefs do not allow them to support issues of the environmental preservation, equality, religious tolerance, civil society, preservation of public resources, fair trade, or world peace.  If you have chosen to work in any of these areas it may benefit you to be aware of their influence. Their involvement as social service providers is widespread and rarely involves a purely altruistic motive. Their social service efforts provide larger platforms for their proselytizing and "harvesting" of souls.

In a land where we treasure religious liberty how do we discuss religious toxicity, religion as a force for harm, religious corruption, or open sedition coming from a religion?  Try saying the words in the title of Dr. Kimball's book out loud in polite company: "When Religion Becomes Evil".

Lately we have been subjected to a sense of horror over the extent of Muslim protests about a cartoon.  I saw a silly kid do something on TV I thought was fascinating. He dressed up like the devil and stood on a busy street corner in Los Angeles with a sign that said "God is Unfair" or maybe "Bring Back Satan", or something like that I can't quite recall. In America it didn't take him long to be - not challenged - but assaulted.  So as we sit feeling somehow above the protest sweeping through the Middle East, I shift uncomfortably in my chair. Do we have the language and the tools needed for We the People to discuss toxic or corrupted religion outside of our ivory towers?

It is about time we find our ten-foot pole and start poking around for ways to talk about religion as a force for social harm. We need to acknowledge the idea that religion is as corruptible as any other human institution. Our dialog has to strive to not minimize the contributions people of all faiths have made in building America, but we cannot back down from questions of corruption.   Where do we go from here? How can we chart this course?