Religious Liberty in Crisis By William Norman Grigg Taken From: The New American Magazine September 6, 1993 page 21 ---===--- "I think we're going to see more pastors charged with conspiracy because of what they preach... Conspiracy is defined as nothing more than two people being in the same room carrying on a conversation about the same subject, which may be unpopular with the government. Preachers need to realize that when they stand at their pulpits and say abortion is wicked, and sodomy is wicked, and the social security or income tax is wicked, and that people should be doing what is righteous, they may be violating the law in the eyes of the government." -- Everett Sileven Pastor of Faith Baptist Church Louisville, Nebraska ---===--- In a book about the War on Poverty published in 1969, now-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan cheerfully acknowledged that American Democracy: "[had become] a process that... deliberately seeks to effect such outcomes as who thinks what, who acts when, who lives where, who feels how. That this description no more than defines a totalitarian society is obvious enough. But it has come to characterize democratic government as well. I do not resist this development." The ominous growth of the state's power and presumption has continued since Moynihan wrote those words. Those who are serious about the preservation of liberty must vigorously resist the relentless advance of the almighty state. That state is not merely indifferent to traditional religious values, but aggressively hostile to them. When Patrick J. Buchanan told the 1992 GOP Convention that America is in the grip of a religious war, the custodians of approved opinion went ballistic. Buchanan was execrated as an apostle of intolerance, and the convention itself was depicted as a festival of hatred. The "Religious Right," which enjoyed prominence-but little tangible influence-at last year's Republican convention, was targeted for special opprobrium. Foundation of Liberty Scarcely a week passes without a warning from the Establishment's opinion cartel about the "danger" posed by the Religious Right. Implicit in such journalism is the assumption that Christian principles are somehow foreign to, and incompatible with, America's governing institutions. But even a cursory acquaintance with the work of America's Founding Fathers will lead to a rather different understanding. James Madison tidily described the central premises of American liberty: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government-far from it. We have staked the future of 11 of our political institutions... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." Thomas Jefferson, who located the source of human liberty in the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," was equally emphatic: "... can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath" Neither Madison nor Jefferson could express such sentiments today without igniting the indignation of the secular left, which insists that the First Amendment requires that government be kept free of the taint of conventional religion. Conservative Christians and Jews are learning that they must surrender their freedom of conscience in order to participate in American politics. Christopher Ave, religion writer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, observes that political leaders who pray and seek guidance from the Bible face increasingly hostile scrutiny: "Such methods of making policy have come under increasing attack from First Amendment watchdog groups, liberal political organizations, and scholars who say religion and government should not mix... Critics say over-reliance on the Bible or Christianity by elected officials violates the doctrine of separation of church and state." Barry Lynn, a spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, explains: "What concerns us is not that people have religious beliefs [but] when they attempt to take what are strictly religious bases for policy and impose that on everyone in the community." Lynn cites the "three-prong" test devised by the Supreme Court in the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, namely, that all government policies must have a secular purpose, neither advance nor impede religion, and avoid excessive entanglement of Church and State. According to Lynn, any political leader who bases his decisions upon religious values violates the standard set forth in the Lemon decision and "is essentially advocating that you defy the Supreme Court." It is absurd to believe that responsible, accountable political leaders "defy" the court when they seek guidance from a more reliable source. However, it is incontestable that secularists like Lynn effectively dei.fy the court by assigning it infallibility in matters of Church-State separation. Furthermore, under the standard described by Lynn, committed Christians cannot be trusted in positions of public responsibility. This could be construed as something akin to a religious test for public office -a practice forbidden by Article VI of the Constitution. Lynn is equally insouciant about other constitutional guarantees. He rejects free speech arguments that are presented in defense of such practices as student-sponsored and student- organized graduation prayer. Insists Lynn, "The problem with [this] free-speech argument is that it is largely bogus. Under certain circumstances religious speech must be treated differently from other speech. The Constitution distinguishes between religion and other activities." Indeed it does, but not in the sense that Lynn suggests: The Founders sought special protection for religious freedom and actively encouraged the propagation of religious morality. Nothing in the Constitution justifies the religious apartheid championed by the likes of Lynn. Lynn seeks to placate the sensibilities of conservatives with patronizing platitudes: "For mainstream religious groups in this country, there is a dizzying level of freedom. Contrast what we have with communist China, and you will understand religious oppression." Of course, the Chinese commissars can point to the state-approved "mainstream" church as an example of their religious "tolerance." But the Chinese government actively persecutes as "cultists" those religious organizations and individuals who challenge the state's primacy. Recent developments-the Waco bloodletting being the most prominent example-suggest that the federal government and its apologists are developing a similar hostility to those who believe in a source of authority beyond the state. While the American Founders labored to create a constitutional republic predicated upon the God-given rights of the individual, a strikingly different philosophy was percolating up through Europe's intelligentsia. That philosophy was brought to vivid, bloody life in the French Revolution. Of that revolution, historian Arnold Toynbee remarked: "In the Revolution a sinister ancient religion which had been dormant suddenly re-erupted with elemental violence. This revenant was the fanatical worship of collective human power. The Terror was only the first of the mass-crime that have been committed... in this evil religion's name." In Book Four of his 1761 work The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau called the worship of collective human power the "civil religion." For Rousseau, the value of religion was to be assessed in strictly utilitarian terms: "It matters greatly to the state that each citizen have a religion that makes him love his duties." What troubled Rousseau was "disunity" in matters of governance; he argued that "whatever destroys social unity is worthless." What was needed, according to Rousseau, was a standard, state-prescribed profession of faith-"one kind of theocracy in which there should be no other pontiff but the Prince, nor other priests than the magistrates." Contending Faiths That civil faith was to be untainted by Christianity, according to Rousseau: "The dominating spirit of Christianity is incompatible with [my] system [because] the interest of the priest would always be stronger than that of the state... [F]ar from attaching the hearts of the citizens to the state, [Christianity] detaches Citizens from all things of the earth; I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit." Rousseau contended that the "social spirit" (also known as the "General Will") requires "a purely civil profession of faith" composed by the sovereign and intended to fortify the sovereign's authority. That "faith" would have nothing to do with revealed truth; it would embrace "the sentiments of sociability without which it is impossible to be a good citizen or a faithful subject." This mandatory profession of civil "faith" would offer severe penalties for apostasy: "If anyone, after publicly acknowledging these dogmas, behaves as though he does not believe them, he should be punished by death. He has committed the greatest of crimes, that of lying before the law." Of all the sins proscribed by Rousseau's civil religion, the most serious was the sin of "intolerance." Regrettably, there is much in history that underscores the dangers of religious intolerance. However, Rousseau was not at all concerned about the injuries inflicted upon individuals because of religious intolerance, but rather that intolerance would threaten the power of the sovereign: "Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it is impossible that it not have some civil effect, and as soon as it has any, the sovereign is no longer sovereign." Rousseau sought to use the public intolerance of the total state as a remedy for private intolerance: "Whoever dares to say, 'outside of the church there is no salvation,' ought to be chased from the state, unless the state be the church, and the prince be the pontiff " In a foreshadowing of the approach taken in the United Nations Charter, Rousseau guaranteed the security of the private conscience, only to revoke it immediately: "The subjects... owe no account of their opinions to the sovereign except as those opinions are important to the community." Unaccountable to God for the protection of individual rights, Rousseau's state could define impermissible opinions. It is significant that Barry Lynn's argument that Christian elected officials cannot properly act upon their convictions harmonizes with Rousseau's design. In his treatment of religion in Mein Kampf, Hitler adopted Rousseau's language, insisting that a political ideology must serve a religious purpose by offering "higher ideals as the sole foundation of morality for the masses." The early Nazi policy of Gleichschaltung (synchronization) was meant to provide those "higher ideals" by bringing all institutions beneath the party's control, including the churches and religious life in general. In 1935, the head of the Nazi education ministry wrote, in an article designed for foreign consumption, that National Socialism required not only a new politics and a new writing of history, but also a new religion. Historian J.S. Conway explains that the Nazis believed themselves to be representatives of a "new paganism" leading "a campaign for the abandonment of all beliefs belonging to a discredited past." The National Socialist faithful regarded their dogma as "higher than the revelation of all churches." The Hitler Youth sang an anthem proclaiming "Our flag is the New Age." In 1934, Hans Kerrl, Reich and Prussian minister for ecclesiastical affairs, warned recalcitrant clergy that they: "must march with the people... [they] must reckon with the fact that a new age has been born and that men must be born again." Historian Christine Elizabeth King notes that though the Nazis were implacably hostile toward traditional Christian denominations, they were congenial to "alternative" sects that "incorporated quasi-pagan myths and rituals and used the now politically-acceptable language of 'race, blood, soil and people.' " Nazi Attack on the Church Co-opted Christians were encouraged to follow the doctrine of "Positive Christianity" which deprived the Gospel of its transcendence and emphasized docile submission to authority. Many traditional Evangelicals rebelled against "Positive Christianity" and fled to the "Confessing Church"; that denomination proved to be a persistent annoyance to the state during the entire Nazi era. In 1936 the leaders of the Confessing Church declared that Christians could not subscribe to the state's official anti-Semitism as it was "against the Christian commandment to love one's neighbor." Many among the Catholic clergy also condemned the National Socialist state as idolatrous. The pre-war Nazi leadership knew that it had to be careful in its dealings with refractory Christians, lest the party provoke a general rebellion. Thus, the party deployed what Hitler called an "iron fist in a velvet glove," encouraging the German population to choose inoffensive pietism while isolating conservative Christians. The Evangelicals belonging to the Confessing Church were execrated as political reactionaries disguised as Christians who were supposedly using the facade of the Evangelical Church to propagate their own political agenda. Nazi propaganda portrayed traditionalist Christian leaders as venal, hypocritical, and unpatriotic. Conway noted: "Priests, monks and nuns in particular were accused, among other things, of violating the complicated currency regulations, under which no German funds could be sent out of the country, even for support of German missionaries abroad." This spurious charge of Catholic "money-smuggling" was incessantly repeated in the press, from controlled pulpits, and in songs chanted by the Hitler youth. The party sought to limit the influence of traditional religion in myriad ways. Catholic youth organizations were branded "separatist" and attacked, both rhetorically and physically Church groups of all varieties were forbidden to participate in any "non-religious" activity, such as charitable service. In 1935 Nazi Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick told a Canadian journalist that the party: "cannot tolerate any attempt to influence youth through seemingly religious associations." In short order religious bodies were forbidden to participate in all "non-religious" matters. As the state's grip tightened on German religious institutions, Nazi propaganda emphasized the party's desire to bring "spiritual freedom" to Germany. Conway observes that the German populace was taught that "the Nazi Party's drastic limitations of Church activities were to be regarded, not as a defeat, but rather as a limitation from a dangerous over-extension of ecclesiastical influence into the political arena." The party constantly warned the public to beware of divisive "reactionaries" who threatened civic harmony. Spectacular charges of sexual impropriety among traditional Christians were also common fare of Nazi propaganda. Conway points out that in 1936 and 1937, readers of the Nazi press: "were regaled with sensational allegations of sexual immorality among the priesthood and among members of religious orders. Every possible accusation was made in the full glare of Goebbels' publicity. And 'immorality trials,' catering to the more salacious tastes of the masses, were staged in the courts and, by ingenious spacing, were made to appear as an unbroken series of clerical offenses." The Nazis invited the public to help find and punish the religious miscreants. Writes Conway: "A great hunt was begun for clerical delinquents in a society honeycombed with informers, and offenders who had already been found guilty and punished by their ecclesiastical superiors were again dragged out before the public gaze." Similar tactics can be found in the arsenal of contemporary secular propagandists. The July/August issue of The Humanist contains an article by newspaper editor James A. Haught entitled, "The Moralizers: Crooks, Quacks, Kooks, Creeps and Cruds in the Clergy." Seizing upon a handful of conspicuous crimes committed by apostate clergy, Haught declares that America is witnessing "an ugly tide of sex offenses and other crimes by ministers." Declares Haught: "Old-lime religion is having a heyday in America. Its champions seek to dictate behavior rules for all of us-to take away our freedom... We must fight back... These scumbags are not morally superior to us. In fact, they are inferior, and it is insulting for them to tell us how to live." Not a word in Haught's creed would have been out of place in a Nazi anti-Christian harangue circa 1937. The increasingly popular depiction of committed Christians as venal, hypocritical fanatics serves the interests of America's civil religion. Rousseau's belief that the prince should be the pontiff of the civil religion finds frequent expression by American political commentators. For instance, immediately after George Bush's inauguration in 1989, Newsweek proclaimed, "The civil religion has found a new vicar." And referring to President Bill Clinton, political commentator Mark Shields remarked: "The President is truly our national secular pastor." Internal Exile Rousseau taught that dissidents from the civil religion should be identified and then exiled or liquidated. Few of his American disciples have gone that far -- yet. In a commentary delivered on the PBS MacNeil/Lehrer program, Time magazine essayist Roger Rosenblatt described the "God in our civil religion" as a "kindly, fair-minded deity" whose "psalms were written by Walt Whitman." That "deity," according to Rosenblatt, looks askance upon "intolerance" and excessive wealth and eschews overtly Christian values. Presumably speaking in the name of his ersatz deity, Rosenblatt urged his nationwide audience to shun and isolate the Religious Right: "You would think there would be more of a national outcry against those who seek to impose religion on government... Those who would corrupt the state with church ought to be out on a limb, alone and insignificant." Of course, the Waco bloodletting illustrates the fact that there is no refuge in isolation for those found guilty of practicing unsanctioned religions. President Clinton, "vicar of the civil religion" and mediator of the "New Covenant," saw the immolation of the Branch Davidians as an object lesson about the dangers of politically incorrect religion. Speaking at an April 20th press conference after the slaughter at the Mt. Carmel compound, Mr. Clinton declared: "I hope very much that others who will be tempted to join cults and become involved with people like Koresh will be deterred by the horrible scenes they have seen... There is, unfortunately, a rise in this sort of fanaticism all over the world. And we may have to confront it again." As with so many of our rights, religious liberty is under assault from the federal income tax code. In the 1970 Walz v. Tax Commission decision, the Supreme Court upheld the tax-exempt status of religious organizations as a means of minimizing the entanglement between Church and State. However, religious organizations that seek to preserve their tax exemptions find themselves on the state's tether, particularly with regard to political activism. This April the IRS exacted a $50,000 fine from the Reverend Jerry Falwell's Old Time Gospel Hour, claiming that the ministry had been improperly involved in politics in 1986 and 1987. IRS spokesman Frank Keith states that the settlement with Falwell's ministry required that Falwell properly "publicize" his fine as a means of "correcting misimpressions" about religious tax exemption. The April 7th New York Times reported: "The agreement with the Old Time Gospel Hour also requires changes in its organizational structure to prevent future violations." So much for the separation of Church and State. Double Standards The state's partisanship in questions of religious tax exemption is patent. Jesse Jackson's 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns were practically run out of black churches; where is the IRS in this matter? Why aren't unabashedly leftist religious activists called upon to justify their tax exemptions? Why hasn't the IRS seen fit to make life interesting for the Unitarian Church, which often functions as little more than a political lobby? One of the most remarkable examples of IRS partisanship involves the Church at Pierce Creek, an Evangelical congregation in Binghamton, New York. During the last presidential campaign the congregation purchased advertisements in USA Today and the Washington Times declaiming against Bill Clinton. The ads predicted that Mr. Clinton would vigorously support homosexual "rights," abortion on demand, and the distribution of condoms in public schools. These ads caught the attention of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Barry Lynn, whose dubious constitutional scholarship we have already examined, displays some of his theological insights regarding the Binghamton congregation: "In this instance the Church at Pierce Creek has gone beyond prophetic witness. We feel obligated to call on the IRS to act." What right does Americans United or the IRS have to define the "prophetic witness" of the Church at Pierce Creek? Reverend Daniel Little, the church's pastor, defended the anti-Clinton ads as part of his congregation's duty to stand as "watchmen on the gates." Immediately after receiving a letter of complaint from Americans United, the IRS began an investigation of the Binghamton congregation. According to Little: "They [the IRS] sent us a long, long list of the things they wanted us to supply" -- that is, the tax investigation quickly became a federal "fishing expedition." But Little remains unimpressed by Caesar: "I'd much rather face the consequences with the IRS than with God." The "Criminal" Church A class-action lawsuit filed against the Catholic Church in June could radically revise the guidelines governing tax exemption for churches. The suit was the first civil action undertaken against church officials under the 1970 RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act. It alleges that church officials conspired some 20 years ago to conceal two sexual assaults committed by priests upon children. Three considerations must be taken into account in this matter. First, unsubstantiated accusations of child sexual abuse have come into vogue during the past several years; many of those accusations have been directed at religious leaders. Regrettably, church officials enjoy no special dispensation from the weaknesses that characterize fallen humanity, and some of those accusations are tragically true. But the constant refrain that we must "believe the victims" -- and place the burden of proof upon the accused-is rooted in political opportunism, not a genuine desire for justice. Second, the RICO statute was originally designed to be used against organized crime. Its use against the Catholic Church is defensible only to those who regard the entire institution to be criminally corrupt. Americans should rebel at the thought that the courts could designate an entire church a criminal enterprise because of the alleged misbehavior of a few communicants or leaders. Third, the use of high-profile accusations of sexual impropriety among the clergy by the Nazis and other totalitarians should not be forgotten. In evaluating the truth of such accusations it is important to take into account the probable interests of the state. Monsignor Salvatore Adamo, a diocesan priest in Camden, New Jersey, observes, "If the RICO charge is vindicated in court, the church could lose its tax exemption." This being the case, it is eminently reasonable to inquire, cui bono? Adamo speculates: "I think somewhere in the background [of the suit] is a homosexual or a pro-choice advocate. I look at this as part of the continuing process to cripple the Catholic Church. If they could besmirch the priesthood, they'll have succeeded to a large degree." Adamo's suspicions are justified in light of the fact that just a few years ago the Catholic Church preserved its tax exemption from a challenge presented by the Abortion Rights Mobilization, which demanded that the state punish the Church for its pro-life teachings. Couple that unsuccessful suit with the fact that feminist groups are making increasing use of spectacular-and unsubstantiated-child abuse accusations, and Adamo's speculation appears sound. But even if the accusations in the RICO suit have merit, the suit portends evil possibilities for the religious freedom of millions of American Christians. Political success enjoyed by conservatives will attract the baleful attention of secularists. During this spring's New York City school board elections, outrage over the multi-culturalist, pro-homosexual Rainbow curriculum catalyzed a remarkable coalition of conservative Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. Regrettably, the election results were less than a resounding succeeds for the pro-family coalition. Even worse, there were renewed rumblings from those who would use the tax code to punish expressions of politically incorrect religious concern in the public square. On May 17th, the New York Times published a letter from New York University professor Jerome Kurtz, who was commissioner of internal revenue from 1977 to 1980. Kurtz portentously advised the conservative congregations who had been involved in the school board controversy that their tax exemptions could be revoked: "The undertaking of these religious groups, directed toward bringing their religious convictions to bear on the administration of public schools, is the classic case that the Internal Revenue Code's prohibition of religious organizations participating in political campaigns is designed to prevent. And it should be prevented. The law should be enforced. The IRS... alone can grant or deny tax exemptions." In Kurtz's view, religious congregations can take no refuge in the Constitution; they must placate the almighty IRS. One strand of the Religious Right believes that churches should be completely emancipated from state regulation. In 1983, the Reverend Greg Dixon founded the Unregistered Church Coalition (UCC). That coalition was meant to provide support for those congregations who chose not to register as 501(e)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Dixon's explanation for this choice is simple: "An exemption that can be granted by the state can be revoked at the state's whim." To Dixon and the approximately 100 member congregations of the UCC, the question of tax exemption is an issue of chureh sovereignty: Registration begins a process leading to the creation of what Dixon calls "state churches." Dr. Robert McCurry, a constitutional historian, explains: "A state church is a church that is recognized by the state, serves the state, provides revenue for the state, and serves a public purpose that is not contrary to established public policy." In short, it is a church that complies with the dictates of the civil religion. Dixon contends: "The church is not to finance the government, nor is the government to finance the church. The pulpit must ever be free to cry out against the king." He cites the example of the prophet Nathan condemning King David's treachery in committing adultery with Bathsheba and conspiring to kill her husband Uriah. Paying the Price Everett Sileven, pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Louisville, Nebraska, is a longtime member of Dixon's coalition. Since entering the ministry in 1978, Sileven has had numerous confrontations with the agents of America's civil religion. In the early 1 980s, Sileven provoked the state by opening a private school in his chapel. The pastor was arrested and his chapel was padlocked by state police. Sileven is presently serving a one year prison term in an Illinois federal prison. The offense for which Sileven was convicted was officially described as: "conspiracy to impede the collection of income taxes" A more accurate description would be: "premeditated preaching of politically incorrect sermons." For many years, Sileven has preached about various political subjects, always seeking a biblical perspective on contentious social issues. He has long been critical of the federal income tax, considering it to be an unconstitutional scheme of wealth redistribution. He has also been an unabashed critic of the Federal Reserve System. Sileven has always urged his congregation to obey the law and has never encouraged tax evasion However, he has suggested that members of his congregation should take advantage of existing legal means of minimizing their tax burdens-in short, he has offered advice similar to that offered by most CPAs. Those who sought Sileven's advice on tax matters were guided by the principle caveat emptor; however ill- conceived that advice may have been, it is difficult to see how it could have been considered conspiratorial. However, federal agents monitored Sileven's activities and collected some 72 hours' worth of audio tape, including sermons, lectures, and private conversations. Those tapes were the main evidence presented at Sileven's trial. Sileven recalls that during a recess in his trial an IRS agent accosted him and said: "Brother Sileven, you have figured out the system. Use it, but don't tell other people how to use it. If you had not been telling other people how to use it, you probably wouldn't be here." One could contend that the First Amendment protects those who offer ill-conceived tax advice and preach unconventional religious ideas. Nevertheless Sileven was convicted of "conspiracy" and began his term in federal prison on August 5th, 1992. Sileven was removed from prison to a federal half-way house on May 27th. On July 29th he was told he could serve the last 40 days of his term in home confinement; however, federal authorities decided that Sileven was too dangerous to have access to the public. In a recent interview Sileven explained, "I was informed by my counselor that [home confinement] was being denied because they had reviewed my case and they considered my preaching to be part of my criminal activity... [T]hey would not be willing to let me go back to my home if I was going to continue to pastor my church during that time." Sileven has been informed that should he continue his ministry following the conclusion of his sentence, he will do so under intense government scrutiny: "I am going to have to stick to what the government considers to be acceptable gospel." While a resident at the half-way house, Sileven meets regularly with a female federal "counselor"; these meetings are referred to as "psychological treatment" designed to cure the pastor of his anti-social tendencies. The pastor notes that his "counselor" has said -- in so many words -- that: "preaching concerning government activities and would be considered inappropriate and unacceptable." To those religious leaders who offer biblical perspectives on contemporary issues, Sileven offers this warning: "I think we're going to see more pastors charged with conspiracy because of what they preach... Conspiracy is defined as nothing more than two people being in the same room carrying on a conversation about the same subject, which may be unpopular with the government. Preachers need to realize that when they stand at their pulpits and say abortion is wicked, and sodomy is wicked, and the social security or income tax is wicked, and that people should be doing what is righteous, they may be violating the law in the eyes of the government." Troubling Possibilities Sileven may be guilty of needlessly inviting trouble. His tax advice may be dubious at best; his teachings about contemporary issues will not earn the approval of all reasonable people, including some conservatives. However, his case does offer some troubling possibilities regarding the future of religious liberty. Dr. Rousas J. Rushdoony, a respected constitutional scholar and biblical commentator, disagrees with the Unregistered Church Coalition's tactics, but agrees with many of its conclusions. Rushdoony states that the First Amendment served two compatible purposes: It prevented the establishment of a state church and it recognized the institutional sovereignty of the churches and protected them from the tyranny of the state. In a conversation with THE NEW AMERICAN, Rushdoony observed: "The early American clergy wanted no connection that would allow the state to govern them." Unfortunately, Rushdoony concludes: "The country being in the evil bind it is in now, there is no protection for the church." "Law is meaningless to judges today. I've heard federal and state judges say they don't want people quoting the Constitution in their courtrooms. There are federal officials who have said that the First Amendment no longer applies to the churches, because the Sixteenth Amendment [authorizing a federal income tax] makes no exceptions." During every election year Americans are lectured about their "Democratic duty" to vote. Commentators in the media caterwaul about the apathy of the American electorate and lament the reluctance of citizens to become involved in civic affairs. During the past five years one portion of the population-the Religious Right-has become active in local politics. Suddenly the same voices that decried apathy a threat to American liberty are condemning the Religious Right's civic participation. Since 1988, the Religious Right has been involved in literally thousands of state and local elections throughout the country, particularly school board elections. By diligently working to turn out the conservative vote, and by speaking persuasively about matters of common concern, the Religious Right has had substantial success-enough to earn the compliment of being branded enemies of "democracy." Peeved PTA So unsettled is the national PTA by the Religious Right's successes that it has dusted off and republished its "Guide to Extremism," first circulated 30 years ago to poison the public mind against the John Birch Society. Arnold Fege, director of Government Relations for the National PTA, describes religious conservatives as: "people who are anti-democratic, who really want to impose their values on the rest of the community without their knowledge." Last November, candidates approved by the Christian Right acquired a voting majority on the school board in Vista, California (a suburb of San Diego). Suddenly, through the questionable miracle of CNN, that school board became the cynosure of world attention. Michael Hudson of the leftist group People for the American Way described the Vista victory as part of the Religious Right's "takeover attempt of school boards" and said that it exemplified "what to fear and what to expect if the Religious Right takes control." Public criticism of "fundamentalists" has been accompanied with more tangible forms of hostility. In many American communities, devoutly religious traditionalists have had to endure physical assaults, vandalism, the desecration of houses of worship, and in some cases persecution at the hands of state authorities. Chuck McIlhenny, a pastor in San Francisco, was the target of death threats and his home and rectory were fire-bombed by homosexual activists. McIlhenny's offense had been to remain steadfast in his biblical beliefs regarding sexual morality. During last winter's "World AIDS Day," Denver's Basilica of the Immaculate Conception was desecrated by homosexuals distraught over Colorado's passage of Amendment Two, which forbade the state to confer civil rights status upon the crime against nature. In Oregon, death threats against Evangelical Christians were among the tactics used by opponents of Measure Nine, an initiative similar to Colorado's Amendment Two. Two independent ministers in Louisville, Kentucky have been repeatedly persecuted by state authorities. They had refused to comply with a state law requiring that all religious organizations be publicly licensed. The ministers have been fined and imprisoned; their houses of worship have been broken into by law enforcement officials. Recently the church buildings have been seized; one has been sold at public auction. Other congregations have experienced similar persecution. In Fort Collins, Colorado, a Christian minister and his congregation were prosecuted and fined and their bank accounts were seized by the state government. That congregation had committed a sin against political correctness by purchasing newspaper ads in opposition to a proposed municipal homosexual "rights" ordinance. Those Americans who believe that the religious "mainstream" is genuinely interested in religious liberty should keep in mind the following episode: In June 1984, the Soviets played host to a 266-member delegation from the National Council of Churches, which toured 14 Soviet cities and visited numerous state-approved churches. According to one member of the American NCC delegation, prior to the group's arrival in the Soviet Union they had been sternly instructed "not to do anything that might insult our Soviet hosts." The June 21, 1984 New York Times reported that the delegation offered "praise for the status of religion in the Soviet Union and condemnation of the United States' role in the arms race." The American clerics happily participated in the familiar Potempkin tour and dutifully recited the Soviet party line for publication; their perjured testimonies were gleefully published in Soviet periodicals to prove to the captive population that it was "free." Nasty Incident Although the NCC representatives offered nothing but praise for the Soviet government and the state-controlled churches, they did take issue with one unsanctioned display of religious conviction. New York Times writer Seth Mydans recorded: "Leaders of the [NCC] group... voiced irritation that the harmony of their visit had been marred when two demonstrators, demanding religious freedom, held up banners during a Baptist church service." The protesters, who were trying to attract public attention to the plight of Baptists who were being persecuted for worshipping in unregistered congregations, held aloft signs declaring, "This is not a free church." A scuffle ensued in which the protesters were dragged bodily from the chapel. Bruce Rigdon of the McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago, who led the NCC delegation, expressed offense at the protest and admiration for the Soviet authorities who suppressed it: "They [the protesters] were asked to leave and they were conducted out by members of the congregation. We believe they are free. I understand that in the United States a situation like this would have been handled by the police." McCormick's remarks were intended to mislead. However, it is not inconceivable that in the near future American police authorities will be "handling" many more religious matters; of course, even as such developments occur the "mainstream" religious leaders will be on hand to assure the concerned public that they are still "free." Americans cannot be too jealous of religious liberty. If freedom of religion is vanquished in America, where will future pilgrims find sanctuary? ---- Copies of this issue of The New American magazine, other issues, or subscription information are available from: The New American P.O. Box 8040 Appleton, WI 54913 (414) 749-3783. (800) 341-1522 (subscription orders only) Check, MasterCard, Visa, Discover, or American Express accepted. ---- The New American (ISSN 0885-6540) The New American Magazine is published biweekly by The Review Of The News Incorporated, 770 Westhill Boulevard, Allpeton WI 54915. Phone: (414) 749-3784. Rates are $39.00 per year (Hawaii and Canada, add $9.00; foreign, add $27.00) or $22.00 for six months (Hawaii and Canada, add $4.50; foreign, add $13.50). Air mail rates on request. Single copies: $2.50, plus $2.00 postage and handling for up to eight copies. Over eight copies, add %15 of dollar total. ---- Copies of this and other articles are available via anonymous ftp from: etext.archive.umich.edu To access these documents (from a UNIX machine on the Internet) simply: 1. ftp etext.archive.umich.edu 2. login: anonymous 3. password: 4. cd /pub/Politics/Conspiracy/LWB 5. (consider using the "prompt" and "binary" ftp options.) ---- Other than as a subscriber, Lance Bledsoe has no connection, financial or otherwise, with The New American magazine or The Review Of The News Incorporated.