Monday, March 26, 2012

Religious Affiliation and Voting Trends

Once again i have come across some interesting stats from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. There seems to be a pattern that most assume in voting trends and political and religious affiliations. Generally speaking, religiously inclined people tend to vote more often, and they tend to identify with the Republican Party on social issues such as homosexuality, prayer in public schools, abortion rights, sex education, gays in the military, contraceptives and others. Perhaps party differentials may not be as divisive on issues such as the size of government, and economic and foreign policy issues? However, these issues may play a part, perhaps their role is less important to religious voters than social issues are? Or, perhaps social issues have been downplayed and are a much larger and important issue in the eyes of the average religious voter, being on par with issues such as economic and foreign policy? Here are some stats that may address these assumptions:

First and foremost, this first stat correlates religious affiliation with presidential voting in the last three races of 2000, 2004 and 2008. 
Jewish, Other faiths and Unaffiliated (which includes nonbelievers) overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic Party. On the flipside, White Protestant/Other Christian and Evangelical/Born-again demographics tend to favor the Republican Party. While Protestant/Other Christian tends to slightly favor the Republicans. In this regard, the basic assumptions of religious affiliation and party identification are sound.
Those who attend worship services more often are more likely to identify as Republican and vote accordingly. Those who never attend or attend a few times a month or a few times a year tend to favor the Democrats. Again, our initial cultural assumption is accurate.
Those who favor the Democratic party are a much less percentage of the total voting pool than those who favor the Republicans. The Jewish, Other Faiths and Unaffiliated are a drastic minority of the electorate. While the Protestant/Other Christian, White Protestant/Other Christian, Catholic and Evangelical/Born-again groups are a much larger percentage of the electorate. This leaves the demographics that largely and consistently favor the Democratic are at a distinct disadvantage to the more religiously oriented groups that favor the Republicans. Once again, our initial assumption holds.
Here we see our initial assumption laid out but with a general trend towards Republicanism. Mormons, Black Protestants and Evangelical Protestants vastly vote Republican while Unaffiliated and Jewish largely vote Democratic. Here we can clearly see a divisive trend in party identification that is defined by religion. What is it that binds these religious demographics to the Republican Party? It seems that it's the large elephant in the room. Mormons, Black Protestants (who overwhelmingly reside in the conservative south) and Evangelical Protestants can have any variance in opinion on foreign policy, on domestic economic policy and the general size of government. However, they all largely agree on social conservatism, namely how they view women, abortion, contraceptives, homosexuality, gays in the military, the role of religion in public life such as prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property like courthouses. Even in this current Republican primary, Rick Santorum, who appeals to these prejudices, has won in states that house more socially conservative religiously affiliated folks. I seem to think that those who are more socially conservative in their religious affiliation tend to come from areas of the country where diversity and pluralism in religion tends to be rather small. This is another general assumption, but perhaps i can find information to back this claim up. Does living in a more diverse and pluralistic social environment foster socially liberal thinking and corresponding political party identification?

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Who Knows More About Religion?

After spending some time on pew forum I found some interesting statistics.  There seems to be a definite pattern among these surveys. 
Jews, Mormons and unbelievers tend to know more about religion. Unbelievers scored the highest in the Religious Knowledge Survey, followed by Jews and Mormons. 
Mormons and Evangelical take the top two slots in knowledge of Christianity but followed closely by unbelievers. However, Jews and unbelievers know more about other religions.
I must admit, i did not know the bottom three facts but I suppose most people don't.
Now here is an interesting stat. The more education one receives the more one is likely to have greater religious knowledge. Jews, in general tend to be well educated. Mormons have BYU where they, thankfully, receive education in other religious traditions. But nonbelievers are a hard demographic to pin down. Is there are correlation between level of education and inclination towards religious affiliation and belief? Perhaps. If so, is this why people like Rick Santorum, and religions like Jehovahs Witnesses, are critical of secular, liberal education? Because, the more you know, the more you question? Because the more ideas you are exposed to, the more you are taught to think critically, the more skeptical you become of superstition? Perhaps. They have a term in social psychology called 'social polarization' that may fit well in this scenario. It says that with any group, nation, religion, or demographic, the more closed off they are to outside information, the more secluded from other ideas and worldviews they are, the more extreme their own beliefs and worldviews become. This can be applied to foreign affairs with nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia that limit the influence other cultures, especially the West, has on their own and it can also be applied to home schooling within the U.S. (as we are all aware that the vast majority of homeschooling is done in the name of religion; to protect children from the secular, religious agenda that threatens them with reason and evidence and critical thinking and a propensity toward pluralism and a celebration of diversity.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Pastor Dennis Terry and Santorum

Pastor Dennis Terry of the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church has blessed Santorum this past week. Religious figures blessing and endorsing political figures is a relatively normal occurrence. They are very interesting when they happen though as they can be a window into the candidates 'private' religious beliefs as they, after all, are accepting their blessing/endorsement. Thus Pastor Terry should be of major concern for all Americans, as he embodies and reflects certain fundamentalist religious viewpoints that Santorum agrees with.

About the LGBTQ community, Terry said, "As long as sexual perversion is being normalized, somebody needs to stand up and say, 'God have mercy on us! God, forgive us!'" This should come as no surprise. The LGBTQ community are second class citizens, they are not normal and any effort to 'normalize' them is a threat to him, his community, his religion and his ideal vision of this country. This is typical us versus them, in-group/out-group, bullshit. He of course is speaking for all Christianity and all Christians, as his limited view of religion of course is the one and only correct version. Arrogant and hateful. If you are not with him, you are against him.

He also said, "I don't care what the liberals say, I don't care what the naysayers say, this nation was founded as a Christian nation." This isn't an uncommon statement, many people share it. However, the history is just false. There is exhaustive historical evidence to suggest just the opposite. I won't go into this here, but i will build up to writing a future blog post about it.

"There's only one God, and his name is Jesus," he says. "I'm tired of people telling me that i can't say those words. I'm tired of people telling us as Christians that we can't voice our beliefs or we can no longer pray in public. Listen to me. If you don't love America, if you don't like the way we do things, i have one thing to say - get out!" The crowd burst into applause. He continued. "We don't worship Buddha! I said we don't worship Buddha, we don't worship Muhammed, we don't worship Allah, we worship God, we worship God's son Jesus Christ." He received a standing ovation, which included Mr. Rick Santorum.

Terry can say whatever he likes. One of the actual cornerstones of this country is free speech. He can say whatever he likes, even if it's hateful. As long as it is private! And of course, not involved in the political discourse! If you don't love America, he says, then get out! If you don't do thing the way we do things, then get out. From this vantage point, there is one way that we do things, or one way that we should do things. Pluralism is itself the enemy, which Terry and Santorum call "liberal".

Terry and Santorum embody a very dangerous ideological worldview. An intolerant and arrogant worldview. The fact that he has gotten so much support from the religious right will hopefully show to the rest of us that the time of tolerating the intolerant will come to an end.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Texas - One State Under God

Texas has a new license plate. It features the three Crosses at Calvary and says "One State Under God."
These license plates are made to benefit a Christian ministry in East Texas. Opponents of the plate claim, and rightfully so, that this is a clear and blatant government endorsement of religion. Advocates, however, claim that this is an expression of religious speech protected under the first amendment. The DMV is a public institution. It is completely facilitated by the state. Of course we have the protection of free speech which includes the expression of religious speech. If people wanted to express their religious free speech with the various automobiles, they can use bumper stickers, which many do. Using a license plate, given by the state and for state purposes is a clear violation of separation of church and state. In addition, having the proceeds go to a religious organization makes it even more transparent. The state cannot sponsor a religious organization. Period.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Religion and Politics in Sri Lanka

 Mark Juergensmeyer discusses a new cold war, a clash of what he calls two ideologies of order, between religious and secular nationalism.  Western secularization and modernization are seen as a direct threat to a more traditional ideology of order, that of religion. In many cases, secularization and modernization are seen merely as the continuation of western colonialism.  The role religion and ideology play in politics cannot be overlooked or underestimated.  In societies divided along religious and ethnoreligious lines, this drama is necessary to explore.  I will present an overview and examination of the role of religion and ideology in the divided society of Sri Lanka.  Religion and ideology in politics more generally must be explored in addition to various issues associated with deeply divided societies.  To understand this drama, different factors and frameworks are necessary for a thorough examination.  First I will explore religion and fundamentalism more broadly.  The case of Sri Lanka will then be presented and examined in light of various approaches to comparative politics.  The lenses of political culture, the role of elites and institutions will be utilized.
Fundamentalisms
Fundamentalism is inherently reactive to secularization and modernization influences.  It is foremost concerned with the erosion and displacement of religion in society.  Religions proper role has been diminished and replaced.  To understand religious nationalism, we must first understand religious fundamentalism.  In Fundamentalisms Comprehended, Marty and Appleby (1995) present a brief overview of the ideological foundations of fundamentalism.  It is dualistic in nature.  The world outside is contaminated and the world inside is pure.  These boundaries are strict.  There are the sinful and the saved, the righteous and the wicked.  These groups offer perfect purity to its members, and in doing so they are absolutists in nature, meaning they believe in inerrancy.  They have the path to liberation or nirvana and offer sanctum from the contaminated, sinful world outside their community.  They are highly concerned with education systems of the secularized world and thus seek to censor information, protecting civil society from corruption.  Behavior deemed sinful is clearly outlined and must be strictly regulated.  The intervention of the secular state in the religious sphere is the primary concern. 
There is a difference various religions have in how they conceptualize time.  There are two kinds of time, historic and messianic.  Historic is open-ended, amenable to gradual reconstruction and transformation.  In messianic time, however, the need is approaching fast and enemies are about to be conquered at any moment.  What role are they to play then if the end is approaching?  Fundamentalists will answer to messianic time through four different patterns of interaction with the world: conquering, transforming, renouncing or creating.  Each of these corresponds also with how to abolish their enemies.  Only two are relevant to our examination of Sri Lanka, the conqueror and the transformer. 
The conquerors seek to eliminate enemies altogether.  They desire to assume control of the structures of society that give life to their enemy.  They are then in a position to define and dominate outsiders, eliminating them, placing them in cultural, political or geographic exile, or converting them forcibly to their cause.  They seek to suppress all alternative visions and movements.  The transformer differs slightly.  They seek to interpret and influence the structures, institutions, laws and practices of a society, so that opposing fundamentalism may become more difficult, and so that conditions become more favorable for the conversion or marginalization of the enemy.  They seek to reform society to its image, but will adopt accommodating strategies with relaxed boundaries and shades of grey.
Sri Lanka – History and Background
Appleby and Marty (1995) outline three characteristics found in the majority of ethnic confrontations.
1.   There are sharp external boundaries and defined territories.  Claims are based on a historical continuity in identification with blood and culture.
2.   Notions of superiority and supremacy bolster the sharp external boundaries. There is thus a sacred basis for nationalist exclusivism.
3.   Utilization of dramatic and confrontational tactics.
Sri Lanka is characterized by the conqueror fundamentalist trend and clearly embodies these three characteristics.  Their unique historical context complicates matters by their background of deep ethnic tensions.  The Sinhala-Buddhist majority is reacting not only to the threats of modernization and secularization, particularly from their colonial past, but also against the threat of the Hindu Tamils emigrating from southern India.  They are seeking to repossess the northern parts of Sri Lanka from the Hindu Tamils.  And the Tamils seek to establish their own separate state on the island.
          Sri Lanka experienced more than four centuries of Dutch, Portuguese and British influence.  Colonial rule had near complete control of their education systems, threatening the survival of Buddhist culture and traditions.  One Buddhist bhikkhu said, “Those politicians who use English language and British customs and force the British political system on us continue colonialism in Sri Lanka as surely as if the British never left” (Juergensmeyer, 1993, 100).  In the late 19th century, Buddhism began to experience a revival.  Buddhist schools began to be encouraged.  Angarika Dharmapala in 1891 started a revivalist journal seeking to create a moralistic and nationalistic Buddhism.  He died in 1933.  Four years later S.W.R.D. Bandaraike founded Sinhala Maha Sabha, a Buddhist revivalist political party.  A Buddhist Commission of Inquiry was formed and they issued a report entitled the ‘Betrayal of Buddhism’, which sought to examine the ways British colonial rule suppressed and discriminated against Buddhism.  This report had a huge influence on the 1956 elections which brought about a movement to make Sinhalese the official state language.  Resistance from the Tamils culminated in the bloody language riots of 1957.  Coupled with urbanization, industrial growth and rising economic inequality, class antagonism began to rise.  All these factors led to extreme political polarization.  Violence and intimidation became an acceptable aspect of political life as the government became more intrusive and authoritarian.  The Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) fought for a separate Tamil state in the north which led to an explosion of violence in the 70s.
          Dharmapala’s leadership demanded that Theravada Buddhism rid itself of foreign influence, purging any synthesis of Buddhism with other faiths or practices (Hindu gods etc), and returning to the simplicities, the ‘fundamentals’ of Buddhism.  Their attention was geared towards reviving Buddhist culture and traditions suppressed by British colonialism and the Hindu and Islamic threats resulting from the Tamils in the north.  In other words, they were concerned with anti-imperialism and ethnonational preemptiveness.  The Tamils were perceived as evil.  Sharp ideological boundaries were drawn and enforced.  The emergence of aggressive Hindu nationalism has only fed their paranoia and reinforced their need to oppose them.  They were an imminent threat to the very survival of their culture, traditions and beliefs and thus must be fought by any means.  The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the Peoples Liberation Front, became the most active Sinhala Buddhist movement.  They regarded the secular government as an “obstacle to social progress” (1993, 104).  They were savage in their tactics, killing hundreds, some say thousands of rural villagers in an attempt to control rural areas and undermine the legitimacy of the government.  Most of their targets however, were government officials in what amounted to a Sinhalese holy war.  In 1988, they boycotted elections and vowed to continue their violent resistance until a Sinhalese Buddhist state was created.  In January 1989, eight candidates for parliament seats were dragged out of their homes and murdered.  They demanded the immediate departure of all Indians from Sri Lanka, civilian and military.  This militancy was handled brutally through government repression and authoritarianism. 
The government’s poor organization and lack of capacity to handle these issues effectively led to reactive social and political movements.  Their political parties have little substance and followings, resulting in fragmentation of religious and political authorities.  This theme will be touched on later in respect to elites.  The outcome, in summary, is that Sri Lanka is deadlocked into a pattern of violence feeding violence based around religious and ethnic differences.
          The Sinhala Buddhists must sustain and fortify its niche in society in order to defend itself from alien, penetrating forces of both the Tamils and secularization.  They must strike violently out at the enemy as they encounter ideological and cultural resistances in a growing pluralist, secularized society.  They clearly can be defined as exhibiting the world conqueror fundamentalist model.  The question is however, what variables exacerbate these divides, and what approaches can be taken to mitigate these patterns in the political culture, their institutions and the role of elites?
Political Culture and Ideology
          Both religious and secular nationalism, according to Clifford Geertz, are cultural systems, and thus are both ideologies.  As such, a brief exploration of ideology is required to understand how they function in society.  Ideology is a key feature to explore simply because it provides meaning to both individuals and to society as a whole.  Geertz says, “the function of ideology is to make an autonomous politics possible by providing the authoritative concepts that render it meaningful” (1997, 218).  People are guided emotionally and intellectually by unexamined biases.  When these biases are religious in nature and provide them with a sense of purpose and meaning they are advanced with great passion and little compromise.  Ideologies are thus crucial as sources of sociopolitical meanings and attitudes. 
When society is unable to have a coherent political orientation, ideologies provide images of the political process.  Geertz asserts that there are currently two approaches to the study of the social determinants of ideology: the interest theory and the strain theory.  The interest theory is characterized by a background of universal struggle for power, influence and advantage.  The strain theory is characterized by a background of an effort to correct sociopsychological disequilibrium.  These two theories are not mutually exclusive and can both be present in an ideological framework (1997, 201).  Structural problems and maladies are felt on the individual level as personal insecurity.  “For it is in the experience of the social actor that the imperfections of society and contradictions of character meet and exacerbate one another” (1997, 204).  Thus, other institutional variables and inefficiencies of the state can create grievances that catalyze ideological reactions.  “Ideology is a patterned reaction to the patterned strains of a social role.  It provides a symbolic outlet from emotional disturbances generated by social disequilibrium” (1997, 204). 
Ideological movements can thus be explained as catharsis.  Emotional tension can be drained off by being displaced onto symbolic enemies, which in turn provides a legitimate justification for hostility.  They can also be explained through individuals and groups legitimizing their actions in terms of adherence to higher values or higher purposes.  The role of civil society here is of the upmost importance.  “It makes a great deal of difference if a society [has] independent trade unions, civic associations, communications media, and political parties, capable of draining off anxiety and resentment in response to social and economic crises, and converting them into secular politics and public policy” (Appleby 1995, 434).  The reduction of civil society by interventionist states thus becomes a stressor, forcing individuals and groups to react ideologically. 
Meaning-making cannot be ignored in divided societies.  Ideology plays a crucial role in the environment in which healing must take place and new institutions must be forged.  Whatever replaces these ideologies must provide similar sociopsychological purposes.  The clash of ideologies, Geertz explains, may bring a given problem to attention, but it may also give it a powerful, passionate charge so that it may no longer be possible to deal with it rationally.  A political environment must then serve the purpose of managing these clashes effectively while simultaneously providing a sense of order and meaning.
Juergensmeyer offers a solution to this problem in his essay The New Religious State.  Religious nationalists, he says, are striving for a political order based on religious values.  They operate on the assumption that religion can replace liberal democracy by providing the “ideological glue” that holds a state together.  Religion, and secularism, according to Juergensemeyer are two competing “ideologies of order.”  Both have the ability to command communal loyalty and legitimize authority.  Both conceive the world around them as coherent and manageable, suggest levels of meaning beneath the mundane world, provide identity and provide authority that give social and political order a reason for being.  And both define how individuals should act and relate people to the larger social network.  
The West has had a long historical dialogue between secularism and religion.  Accommodating religion in the developing world is proving much more difficult.  Juergensmeyer says, “given religious histories that were part of national heritages, religious institutions that were sometimes the nations’ most effective systems of communication, and religious leaders who were often more devoted, efficient, and intelligent than government officials, religion could not be ignored” (1995, 384).  The government of Sri Lanka needs Sinhalese support but also cannot afford to alienate the Tamils and other minority groups.  This dynamic, leads to what is called, a double frustration; leaders are considered traitors by both religious and secular communities by making compromises.  Both feel that behind the compromises lie an inherent bias and loyalty.  Juergensmeyer believes, however, that it is possible to form an alliance and balance between these two ideologies.  The clashes between them can create new possibilities for accommodation and synthesis, forming the new religious state. 
Institutions
There are many institutional variables to take into account such as the electoral process and rules of political competition.  According to Alfred Stepan, having free and contested elections is a necessary condition for the successful transition to democracy.  To be considered free and contested, certain institutional guarantees must be met: the freedom to join and form organizations, the freedom of expression, the right to vote, eligibility for public office, right of political leaders to compete for support and votes, access to alternative sources of information, free and fair elections, and institutions for making government policies depend on votes and other expressions of preference (2001, 216).  In addition, the constitution must have some measure of protection for minority rights.  All groups must have the right and capability to advance their interests.  Sri Lanka obviously does not meet all these requirements.  How then can we create certain institutional rules of the game that can lead to these results?
In the West, Stepan says we carry an assumption: for democracy to flourish we need a strict separation of church and state. This is a false assumption.  Before states can be considered a democracy they must first be crafted for what he calls the “twin tolerations,” meaning that minimal boundaries of freedom must be crafted for political institutions by religious authorities and vice versa.  The dynamic between religion and politics, according to Stepan, lies not in church-state separation but in the construction and reconstruction of the twin tolerations, a kind of dialectic forming a new synthesis again and again.  For this to occur, he believes religions must possess multivocal elements.  Multivocal elements are elements within religious doctrine that can be used to help craft new practices and tolerance of democratic structures and struggles.  Without these multivocal elements, society will not be able to manage the necessary dialectic between secularism and religion and will thus be deadlocked, unable to successfully transition to democracy.  This will be a difficult task to achieve.  Fundamentalism, as we know, is alienative in that it distrusts, attacks and works to undermine established secular political institutions.  Whoever is not with me, is against me; compromise is abhorred.  How then, can this be achieved?
          The design of the political system creates the rules of the game.  Organizing political institutions is one way to begin to forge this new alliance.  Arend Lijphart in his essay Constitutional Design for Divided Societies offers some possible solutions.  He says, different groups can only be accommodated through power sharing, which requires the “participation of representatives of all significant communal groups in political decision making” (2004, 97).  He outlines a “one size” power-sharing model that fits well for most divided societies regardless of unique contexts.  I will quickly present a few of these recommendations.  He advocates proportional representation systems, so that all groups are treated equally.  The overriding principle here is never to exclude any significant group.  He prefers parliamentary systems as opposed to presidential because presidential systems tend to be majoritarian in nature and result in ‘winner-take-all’ outcomes.  Power sharing must be built into the executive, including having multiple languages and ethnicities.  He also advises for federalism and decentralized power.  This is an excellent way to provide autonomy and to avoid dominance by larger states on the federal level.  These mechanisms can provide institutional rules of the game that can shift towards cooperation and tolerance between differing ethnic and religious divides. 
The Role of Elites
          John Higley and Michael Burton assert that stable democracies depend greatly on the “consensual unity” of elites.  The internal relations of national elites are a strong determinant for democratic transitions and breakdowns.  Regime changes must be considered temporary unless accompanied by elite transformations, from disunity to consensual unity.  Elites are considered disunified when its members “(1) share few or no understandings about the properties or political conduct and (2) engage in only limited and sporadic interactions across factional or sectoral boundaries.  The basic situation of persons composing this elite type is one of deep insecurity” (1989, 19).  The fear is that the other person, or other faction will gain the upper hand.  Members will then take extreme measures to defend their position, killing or imprisoning their enemies.  Stable regimes do not simply appear as the result of writing constitutions or holding elections.  The necessary step, they say, is the consensual unification of previously disunified elites.  If Sri Lanka had sufficient leadership in political parties and support from citizens, this theory would lead us to believe, that the conversation between disunified elites can begin to take place and reach what Higley and Burton call “elite settlement.”  Once this occurs, the political rules of the game can begin to be formed through other institutional means. 
Summary and Conclusion
Juergensmeyer believes that religious nationalisms all over the globe are creating a new synthesis of secular politics and religion. 
They are creating…a merger between the cultural identity and legitimacy of old religiously sanctioned monarchies and the democratic spirit and organizational unity of modern industrial society.  This combination can be incendiary, for it blends the absolutism of religion with the potency of modern politics.  Yet it may also be necessary, for without the legitimacy conferred by religion, the democratic process does not seem to work in some parts of the world.  In these places, it may be necessary for the essential elements of democracy to be conveyed in the vessels of new religious states (2003, 201-202).
Whether this is able to occur in Sri Lanka is another story and depends on a number of different factors.  The political culture itself needs to undergo a shift in order to provide meaning for its citizens in the secular and democratic process.  Institutional factors must also be addressed.  The electoral and representative systems must be tailored to foster a political environment of cooperation and mutual benefit.  The “twin tolerations” must evolve in order to begin the dialectic between secular and religious nationalisms.  The role of elites will also play a role in creating the necessary political climate for changes to be made.  In conclusion, the fundamentalisms in Sri Lanka are very complicated, and no single solution is apparent.  The new cold war continues to be waged. 

Resources

Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby Eds. 1995. Fundamentalisms Comprehended. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Juergensmeyer, Mark. 1993. The New Cold War? Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Juergensmeyer, Mark. The New Religious State in Comparative Politics, Vol. 27, No. 4. (Jul., 1995), pp. 379-391.

Geertz, Clifford. 1997. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.

Higley, John; Burton, Michael G. The Elite Variable in Democratic Transitions and Breakdowns. In American Sociological Review, Vol. 54, No. 1. (Feb., 1989), pp. 17-32.

Lijphart, Arend. Constitutional Design for Divided Societies. In Journal of Democracy, Vol. 15, No.2. (April 2004). Pp96-107.

March, James G., Olsen, Johan P. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. 1984. pp.734-747.

Diamond, Larry, ed. 2005. The World’s Religious Systems and Democracy: Crafting the “Twin Tolerations”. pp. 213-253.

Stepan, Alfred. 2001. Arguing Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Tolerating the Intolerant

Tolerating the Intolerant: The Christian Right in American Politics
In the United States our intellectual history has shown an evolution in religion/state relations that is at times accommodating and at times insisting on a strict separation.  These two trends have been particularly active with issues such as prayer in public schools and abortion.  Both areas of contention have been part of a larger ideological struggle that continues in our politics today.  We are still asking: What role is religion to play in public life and what is the appropriate state control/regulation of religion?  I want to explore the threat that the Christian right poses to the separation of church and state.  Through ideology, informal institutions and political culture, religiously intolerant views are forcefully influencing our politics.  I think that our tradition, as Ahmet Kuru (2009) defines as passive secularism, is unable to abate this threat and a stricter separation of church and state is necessary to the survival of secular politics and institutions. 
Religious tolerance is a foundation of American society, state and politics. But how much toleration will we extend to the intolerant?  This is a question that has been at the forefront of our intellectual history as Locke and Rousseau illustrate:
No opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society are to be tolerated by the magistrate…These therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto themselves, a peculiar privilege or power above other mortals, in civil concernments, or who, upon pretense of religion, do challenge any manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in the ecclesiastical communion, I say, these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate (Locke 2010, 53-55).

There is therefore a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as the religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject.  While it can compel no one to believe them, it can banish from the state whoever does not believe them – it can banish him, not for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice…The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded…its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance…it is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as damned…tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship (Rousseau 2010, 103-104).
The common strain is that the intolerant in a society founded on tolerance is a threat to the state.  Only when groups propagate intolerant views contrary to the state, civil society, and duties of citizenship, do they become threats and should thus lose the privilege of tolerance.  The Christian right (particularly the Christian Reconstruction movement) has become such a threat.  It has become a powerful, influential force in our political life, affecting and defining ideologies that, I will argue, violate the separation between religion and state.  I will discuss school prayer and abortion as well as other contemporary issues such as sex education in schools, the evolution/creationism debate and homosexuality.  The Christian right will be explored first followed by theoretical frameworks, defining ideology, fundamentalism and political culture.  The work and ideas of John Locke will be used in defense of my argument.
Lets briefly, as an introduction, explore the difference between these two quotes and the ideological assumptions that are their foundation: 
The Christian view of morality and life is the one that should prevail in America...our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost…as the vice regents of god, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment, our news media, our scientific endeavors – in short, over every aspect and institution of human society (Hedges 2006, 58) – Dr. D. James Kennedy
Our loyalty to our community, our nation and our ideology, Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, “is morally tolerable only if it includes values wider than those of the community” (Hedges, 10).  Views similar to those of Dr. D. James Kennedy illustrate a worldview referred to as “Dominionism,” which takes its name from Genesis 1:26-31 when God gave humans dominion over all creation.  Dominionism espouses an ideology that calls on the seizing of political power by Christians, politicizing faith.  Christians are called to build the kingdom of God in the here and now, it is their responsibility and duty (Hedges, 12). 
Dominionism is embodied in the Christian Reconstruction movement, said to begin with R.J. Rushdoony.  In 1973 he wrote the famous The Institutes of Biblical Law.  In this book, Rushdoony calls for a reinstatement of Mosaic Law outlined in the Old Testament.  These penal codes call for the death penalty for such offenses as adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, astrology, idolatry and apostasy, and in the case of women “unchastity before marriage” (Hedges, 13).  Religious institutions, its laws and penalties, should replace secular institutions.  But we are forced to ask: what about people who aren’t Christian?  Rushdoony said, “Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies…Christianity is completely and radically anti-democratic; it is committed to spiritual aristocracy.”  Rushdoony, in these statements illustrate that the Christian reconstruction movement is both fundamentalist and exclusivist.  They hold the inerrant truth and must become the shepherds of the lost and the damned, acting as a divine authority with dominion over all others, Christian or not.  Before I discuss how influential these ideas are in our politics and civil society, the nature of fundamentalism and exclusivism must be discussed. 
Fundamentals of Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is inherently reactive to various elements of secularization and modernization influences.  It is foremost concerned with the erosion and displacement of religion in society.  Religions proper role in public life has been diminished and replaced.  In Fundamentalisms Comprehended, Marty and Appleby (1995) present a brief overview of the ideological foundations of fundamentalism.  It is dualistic in nature.  The world outside is contaminated and the world inside is pure.  There are the sinful and the saved, the righteous and the wicked. These boundaries are strict.  These groups offer perfect purity to its members.  They have the path to liberation and offer sanctum from the contaminated, sinful world outside their community.  In doing so they are absolutists in nature, meaning they believe in inerrancy, a point I will return to again and again.  For example, the Accelerated Christian Education, one of the countries largest publishers of Christian textbooks, defines liberal and conservative as such, liberal – “referring to philosophy not supported by scripture” and conservative – “dedicated to the preserving of scriptural principles” (Hedges, 152).  A dichotomy is set up, between believers and non-believers, between those with truth and those without.
Exclusivism is the attitude that my community, my nation, my tradition and set of values are the only correct ones, excluding all others.  My way is true and all others false.  For example, Reverend Bailey Smith at a Religious Roundtable in Dallas, Texas said, “God almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew.  For how in the world can God hear the prayer of a man who says Jesus Christ is not the true messiah” (Flemming, 2005)?  The Catholic Encyclopedia defines atheism as such: “Formal dogmatic atheism is self refuting, and has never de facto won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men.  Nor can polytheism, however easily it may take hold of the popular imagination, ever satisfy the mind of a philosopher” (Dawkins 2006, 53).  These examples illustrate the exclusive attitude.  My religion, my way of thinking, is the right way, others are wrong, and it is our duty to eradicate the opposition.  This way of thinking brings up the question of truth claims.  How can people from different traditions claim that their way is the correct and all others are false?  How can they all be right?  Inter-religious dialogue from these points of views is pointless.  No understanding may be reached because before the conversation begins, the mind is already made up; there is no room for any new information.  This fallacy was a basis for Locke’s call for toleration,
Peace, equity, and friendship, are always mutually to be observed by particular churches, in the same manner as by private persons, without any pretense of superiority or jurisdiction over one another…for every church is orthodox to itself…whatsoever any church believes, it believes to be true, and the contrary thereto it pronounces to be error; so that the controversy between these churches about the truth of their doctrines, and the purity of their worship, is on both sides equal (21-22)
Pluralism stands opposite of exclusivism.  It can be not only difficult to understand but also to practice.  It asserts that no single lineage, community, nation, text, or teacher possesses spiritual/religious truth exclusively, or inclusively.  All texts, nations, communities and teachers are prized on their own terms, as contributing knowledge and livelihood to the greater whole of humanity.  However, pluralism is not synonymous with diversity.  Rather than just accepting the differences and other-ness in a relativistic sense, pluralism is active.  It promotes an actual encounter with difference; it is an opportunity for engagement and conversation.  This conversation leads to greater understanding and cohesion.  We are intolerant and exclusive to the extent we are incapable of including those outside the community we identify with in our sets of values.
Exclusivism, whether religious or social, inherently sets up an in group/out group binary.  The in-group is brought together by a shared ideology and adherence to their version of truth.  Outside influence and different ideas are threatening to their faith, their beliefs, their culture and entire way of life.  Therefore, difference is demonized, cast out and attacked.  As Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue illustrates, “Our goal is a Christian nation.  We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country.  We don’t want pluralism…We must have a Christian nation built on God’s law, on the Ten Commandments.  No apologies” (Dawkins, 2006).  Pluralism, diversity and secular institutions become the enemy.  Taking prayer out of schools, legalizing abortion, allowing for gay marriage and teaching evolution instead of creationism all appear as part of an epic religious struggle fought with passionate tenacity. 
You must be saying to yourselves at this point that people who fit these descriptions of fundamentalism and exclusivism, those who call for a Christian nation, are the vast minority.   This assumption is false, naïve, and dangerous.  As we will see, this is a highly motivated, well-organized and well-funded movement that is extremely political. 
The Christian Right: Examples
James Dobson wants to ban abortion, supports abstinence only sex education and is extremely anti-gay.  He calls for prayer in public schools, although, only if students lead, because teachers may encourage Christian students “to pray to Allah, Buddha or the godless Sophia.”  He urges Christian parents to pull their children out of the public school system and likens the proponents of gay marriage to the Nazis, saying to parents, “this movement is the greatest threat to your children” (Hedges, 103).  He is a Ph.D. in child development, who taught at USC.  He is heard on the Focus on the Family program run on over 3000 radio stations, and operates organizations in 36 states.  He employs 1,300 people, sends out four million pieces of mail each month and is heard in 116 countries.  His estimated listening audience is more than 200 million worldwide, and in the U.S., appears on 80 television stations each day.  Bill McCartney, the founder of Promise Keepers, a conservative Christian group for men, calls the battle against abortion the Second Civil War.  In the brochure of Love Won Out, sponsored by James Dobson, homosexuality is called a disease and is condemned as a “threat to the family, the health of the nation and Christianity itself” (Hedges, 96).  It says they “declare war on those who are unrepentant and those they brand as militant and actively promote the gay agenda.  They say there should be no tolerance for those who refuse to get help [purge same-sex attraction and adopt traditional male and female roles]” (Hedges 96).  America, they say, will pay a price for permitting gays and lesbians to live openly in defiance of God.  This is described as “moral pollution.”  God will punish America if we do not repress gays and lesbians.  Pat Robertson was bold enough to say,
I believe the protection, the covering of God that has been on this great land of ours for so many years, had lifted on September 11, and allowed this thing to happen.  God apparently had good reasons for exposing the USA to such destruction given the many sins that Americans have committed ever since the Roe versus Wade court case and the Supreme Court decision to keep God out of schools (Hedges, 106). 
Many in the Christian Right assert that because of “moral pollution,” because abortion is legal and because we do not allow prayer in public schools, God has punished America by killing thousands of innocent people.  And Robertson warns that if we do not do something about this moral pollution soon, something worse will happen.  Whatever catastrophe befalls our nation next, in his (and many others) eyes, it will be because we fail to have our public institutions follow their version of God’s will.  This exclusive and fundamentalist ideology does not offer legitimacy to other, different ways of being, or reasoning, that are morally and socially acceptable.  There is one way to be and either you are on board or you are their enemy.  Locke described this as “absolute theocracy,” there is no difference between the commonwealth and religion…”God himself has become the legislator” (2010, 44). 
Rod Parsely is the head of World Harvest Church and is a charismatic leader of the Christian Right.  He is noted famously for saying,
The secular media never likes it when I say this, so let me say it twice.  Man you battle stations!  Ready your weapons!  They say this rhetoric is so inciting.  I came to incite a riot.  Man your battle stations!  Ready your weapons!  Lock and load!...Let the struggle begin.  Let it begin today with a shout unto Him who has called us to war… (Hedges, 162).
The battle for Christian values in the public sphere is a perpetual war.  This war cannot be one simply because they believe they have the inerrant truth and will not compromise their position. 
Timothy LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins coauthor a series of Christian apocalyptic thrillers called “Left Behind.”  These books have more than 62 million copies in print and have been made into movies and video games.  In these novels, those who join with the anti-Christ include the “United Nations, the European Union, Russia, Iraq, all Muslims, the media and the liberals.  The anti-Christ, who runs the UN eventually moves the headquarters to Babylon (Hedges, 187).  Frank Wright who served as the executive director for Kennedy’s Center for Christian Statesmanship, a ministry that conducts training for politicians on how to “think biblically about their role in government,” warned that “calls for diversity and multiculturalism are nothing more than thinly veiled attacks on anyone who is willing or desirous or compelled to proclaim Christian truth” (Hedges, 138-9). 
During his presidency, George W. Bush gave public funds to faith-based organizations.  In 2003, they received 8.1% of the social service grant budget.  In 2004, that increased to 10.3% or $2.005 billion.  In 2005, it increased to 11%, over $1 billion of which was spent on chastity programs alone (Hedges, 23-4).  Public money, in this case, is being used to propagate sexual values that just happened to be in line with the dominant cultural, religious ideology of the Republican Party.  More and more, there has been a trend of the moral values of the Christian Right playing a role in politics.  For example, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said “I see the Family Research Council (FRC) as a bridge between Christians and between government…as this bridge, the FRC sends its team to Congress and into the White House on a daily basis to advocate for family and for our faith” (Hedges 138).  The Senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, not only wanted to ban abortion but also called for the death penalty for doctors who would carry out abortions once the ban was put in place (Hedges, 23).  Religion, it is easy to see, is quite present in our everyday politics.  But intolerant religious views are also present and quite powerful.  The Christian Right has gained steam, tipping the balance in their favor. 
Historical Context
The history of religion/state dynamics is characterized by an ebb and flow between accommodation and separation. This ideological struggle, Kuru describes as a “passive secularism.”  Religion and its symbols are allowed in public space but with certain restrictions.  For example, in McCreary County v. ACLU, it was decided that displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses and public schools in Kentucky violated the Establishment Clause.  However, in Texas, it was said that the same issue did not violate the Establishment Clause due to its historical and secular aspects.  This ideological struggle is evident in other areas of public life as well.
The Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed in 1796 with the ruler of Tripoli explicitly says, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…”  Yet many call the United States a Christian nation.  It has been cited as such in judicial hearings, and been a factor in many court decisions.  In 1890, the Court criticized “polygamy for being a crime ‘by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries’ and recognized as such ‘by the general consent of the Christian world’” (Kuru, 86).  In 1844, the Court referred to the Bible as “a divine revelation.”  In 1892 the Court explicitly defined America as “a religious nation.”  The Court elaborated that these decisions and references “add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation” (Kuru, 87).  Conservatives and liberals as well as their mutual extremes, strict separationists and those on the Christian Right, have different interpretations of secularism and what it means for religion/state dynamics.  Passive secularism can be said to include moderates on both the liberal and the conservative sides. 
The Christian Right has become a much more powerful force in recent history, tipping the balance in their favor.  For example, in 1950 there were only 18 major religious lobbies in D.C.; by 1985 that number increased to eighty.  From 1943 to 1980 the Supreme Court made 57% separationist decisions and 36% accomodationist decisions; from 1981 to 2002, the trend shifts with 60% accomodationist decisions and 35% separationist decisions (Kuru, 63).  This trend can be attributed to both an ideological backlash to secular policies and an increased organizational capacity of the Christian Right.  Kuru summarizes, “the dominance of separationism ignited a religiously conservative countermovement in the 1950s” (93).  This can be illustrated by the addition of “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and the declaration of a National Day of Prayer in 1952.  “In God We Trust” became mandatory to have on all currency in 1955, and in 1956 it became our national motto.  In 1952, Justice William O. Douglas said, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” (94).
President Ronald Reagan effectively created an alliance between the Christian Right and the Republican Party.  Their presence and influence in Washington has increased dramatically since this marriage.  The Christian Coalition, the Eagle Forum and the Family Resource Council rank politicians in terms of their adherence to Christian values (Hedges, 23).  In 2004, 45 senators and 186 members of the house received approval ratings in between 80 and 100 percent.  Exit polls on Election Day indicated that 23% of voters identified as evangelical and 78% of their vote went to the Republican Party.  The majority of voters said the most important issue for them in the election was “moral values,” in this case, religious values such as abortion and homosexuality.  In presidential and house elections in the 2000s, 60 percent of those who said they frequently attended worship services voted for the Republican Party, while only 40 percent voted for the democrats (Kuru, 53).  As we will see in the coming section, an informal institution, that of religious discourse in the public sphere, is becoming more and more formalized through this marriage with the Republican Party.
The Christian Right, led by Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition and Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, based itself largely in opposition to court decisions on the issues of prayer in public schools and abortion.  Robertson in 1990 founded the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which influences judicial nominations, and attempts to retain references to God in public space.  Dr. D. James Kennedy runs a lobbying group called the Center for Reclaiming America and the Center for Christian Statesmanship, which evangelizes to members of congress (Hedges, 58).  He also hosts monthly luncheons for members of congress and their staffs.  Kennedy desires to ban abortion, homosexuality and the study of evolution.  He claims the theories of evolution were the basis for Nazism, Communism and Fascism.  He formed Worthy Creations Ministry in 1998, which claims that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured.
The Michael Newdow case in California in 2002 illustrates both the emotional backlash toward secular ideology and the cultural dominance of what is being called the “monotheistic alliance.”  The court ruled that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, as well as the requirement that teachers lead the recitation, violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause.  Immediately, the decision sparked emotional reactions from politicians.  The House and the Senate struck down the decision by voting 416-3 and 99-0 respectively.  In addition, they passed a new bill just afterward keeping the words “under God” in the pledge and “In God We Trust” as the national motto.  Some argue that these phrases do not violate the constitution on account of their not being attached to a particular religion.  Others say that its constitutional because its not religious, but historical, and is a mere patriotic ceremony.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that the public honoring of God and the Ten Commandments is constitutional because ‘the three most popular religions in the U.S., Christianity, Judaism and Islam – which combined account for 97.7% of all believers – are monotheistic…it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists (Kuru, 55-56).
Does this quote amount to what Kuru calls “a cultural dominance of Christianity in the U.S.” (53)?   This quote shows a complete disregard for the protection of religious minorities and nonbelievers, establishing a state recognized favoritism that clearly violates the very notion of religious pluralism and separation of religion and state.
            Can you imagine a republican candidate in the coming 2012 primary elections being pro-choice or for same-sex marriage? Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are all pro-life, and all have said they would repeal Roe v. Wade. Bachman called Planned Parenthood a “heinous organization.” Cain said, “It’s not Planned Parenthood, It’s planned genocide.” Cain is also against same sex marriage and even civil unions. Gingrich opposes all domestic partnership benefits. Both Cain and Gingrich have said they think homosexuality is a sin, their religious beliefs clearly dictating their public policy decisions. Both Gingrich and Romney have said they will enact a federal amendment to “protect traditional family values.” Gingrich went so far as to say that “judges must understand our rights come from God, not the government.” There is a growing shift in the balance of passive secularism.  Assertive secularism must respond in kind.
Informal Institutions, Ideology & Psychology of Religion
In the world of comparative politics, it has been widely recognized the role of formal institutions such as constitutional design, electoral systems and other formal arrangements affect political and economic outcomes, the “rules of the game” so to speak.  However, informal institutions are now being recognized as also having great influence on the state.  Informal can be said to be structures that are “created, communicated, and enforced outside of officially sanctioned channels” (Helmke and Levitsky 2004, 725).  This area of research offers new insight into the motivations of political behavior.  It is necessary to explore the religious dimensions of political motivation.  I will argue that an informal institution has been established that not only accepts and encourages politics in religion, but accepts religious reasoning in politics.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, and it would be naïve to say that religious reasoning should be completely outside of the political sphere.  However, I am arguing that when the religious reasoning used for a political position is inherently intolerant, insofar as they are exclusivist, it should not be tolerated.  For example, the reasoning behind such issues as homosexual marriage, abortion, and the creationism/evolution debate, are usually, if not always religious in nature.  Marriage is a historically religious institution and is heterosexual in nature.  Arguments to define the secular institution of marriage are based on this history, creating an informal institution.  If adopted as a constitutional ban as President Bush tried to accomplish, it would have been a formal adoption of an informal institution, discriminatory in nature.  Pro-life arguments against abortion are often religiously based, claiming that the soul enters the body upon conception. 
Ideology is a key feature to explore simply because it provides meaning to both individuals and to society as a whole.  Clifford Geertz says, “the function of ideology is to make an autonomous politics possible by providing the authoritative concepts that render it meaningful” (1997, 218).  People are guided emotionally and intellectually by unexamined biases.  When these biases are religious in nature and provide them with a sense of personal purpose and meaning they are advanced with great passion and little compromise.  Ideologies are thus crucial as sources of sociopolitical meanings and attitudes.  People adopt ideologies or are indoctrinated or socialized into them, get organized around them and advance them in their struggle to transform public policy. 
Geertz says there are currently two approaches to the study of the social determinants of ideology: the interest theory and the strain theory.  A background of universal struggle for power, influence and advantage characterizes the interest theory.  A background of an effort to correct sociopsychological disequilibrium characterizes the strain theory.  These two are not mutually exclusive and can both be present in an ideological framework.  “Ideology is a patterned reaction to the patterned strains of a social role.  It provides a symbolic outlet from emotional disturbances generated by social disequilibrium” (1997, 204).   The perceived disequilibrium in the state by those in the Christian right is seen as the secular policies we have been discussing.
The movement as a whole is seen as being attacked by government, by secularism and secularists.  Their tradition, their way of life is under siege.  As Hedges said, “the movement is being fueled by the fear of powerful external and internal enemies…these carefully cultivated feelings of persecution foster a permanent state of crisis, a deep paranoia and fear” (28).  On the defensive, Dr. Kennedy summarizes this perspective.
The hostile barrage from atheists, agnostics and other secular humanists has begun to take a serious tool on [our] heritage.  In recent years they have built up their forces and even increased their assault upon all our Christian institutions, and they have been enormously successful in taking over the public square.  Public education, the media, the government, the courts and even the church in many places, now belong to them (Hedges, 58).
The patterned reaction is thus an ideological reaction that is highly emotional and uncompromising.  The Christian reconstruction movement can be thought of as consisting of both the interest theory and the strain theory.  They are locked in a epic struggle for power and position in the public sphere and they also act as a countermovement in response to the social disequilibrium they feel on both the personal and communal levels.  It is exactly these struggles however that makes this a powerful movement.  They offer a sense of excitement, belonging and personal empowerment to their members, comradeship and solidarity.  It gives mundane life a sense of purpose and meaning.  Lives transform into an epic battle against evil.  Stability in the home and family is offered; you are now in a loving and supportive community with fixed moral standards abolishing uncertainty and doubt.  The confusing world is made into a predictable and understandable world where the knowledge of God and Truth is comforting and offers solace from the messiness of human life.  In short, they abandon reality for a fantasy; one that fulfills deep psychological and social needs through an inability to cope with ambiguity, uncertainty and existential fears (death, meaninglessness, isolation and freedom).   Hedges says,
The difficult task of learning to make moral choices, how to deal with the chaos of human life is handed over to God-like authority figures…people are no longer judged by their intrinsic qualities, by their action or capacity for self sacrifice and compassion, but by the rigidity of their obedience (88).
Ideological movements can thus be explained as catharsis.  Emotional tension can be drained off by being displaced onto symbolic enemies, which in turn provides a legitimate justification for hostility.  But ideological movements, more dangerously, can also be explained through individuals and groups legitimizing their actions in terms of adherence to higher values or higher purposes (especially those ordained by God), which can be the ultimate justification for an uncompromising position.  The clash of ideologies, Geertz explains, may bring a given problem to attention, but it may also give it a powerful, passionate charge so that it may no longer be possible to deal with it rationally.  When evil is always externalized, the moral justification is provided for the complete eradication of the enemy with no compromise.  The marriage of the Christian Right with the Republican Party can be thought of as informal institutions beginning to be formalized in our political system.  It is not only becoming the norm, but it is also beginning to embed itself in our very institutions.  Considering these issues, we need to be deeply concerned with not only the presence of these religious ideologies in our politics but with the rise of the Christian Right religious education of our children, which will perpetuate this informal institution.    
Education
Fundamentalists are highly concerned with education systems of the secularized world and thus seek to censor information, protecting civil society from their perceived corruption.  Behavior deemed sinful is clearly outlined and must be strictly regulated.  The fundamentalist publishing house A Beka defines African religious beliefs as “false”, and Hinduism as “pagan” and “evil.”  Their high school history textbook blames the poverty and chaos in Africa on their lack of Christian faith (Hedges, 153).
America’s Providential History by Mark Beliles and Stephan McDowell published in 1989 has become the standard textbook in Christian schools for history classes.  It says “When the spirit of the Lord comes into a nation, that nation is liberated.  The degree to which the Spirit of the Lord is infused into a society (through its people, laws and institutions) is the degree to which that society will experience liberty” (Hedges 16).  In Biology: Gods Living Creation another popular Christian school textbook it claims that “the probability that evolution occurred is essentially zero” (Hedges 118).  This pseudo science seeps into the public debate, and is reported by the media nervous to present multiple sides to every argument.  This is why intelligent design or creationism is taught alongside evolution in science classes across the country, a view that President George W. Bush argues for. 
Between 1992 and 2002, total enrollment in conservative Christian schools rose 41%.  Between 1999 and 2003, the number of home-schooled children rose from 850,000 to 1.1 million.  Of those surveyed, 72% of parents said it was because they desired to give their children a religious a moral instruction (Hedges 153). 
Pastor Russell Johnson warns about the “secular jihadists” who have hijacked American.  He accuses the secular public schools of neglecting to teach that Hitler was an evolutionist.  In line with the interest theory as presented by Geertz, the rhetoric used creates an atmosphere of warfare, of being constantly under attack.  Other political viewpoints and moral systems are a threat to social security and cohesion.  There is one, uniform moral code.  It must not only pervade private life but also public life. 
Conclusion: Tolerate the Intolerant?
Democracy is not antithetical to faith.  Democracy merely seeks to keep faith in the private sphere ensuring equality and an equal measure of protection for all people, regardless of differences in religion.  It ensures coexistence.  The call for a breakdown of public and private spheres is a call for the breakdown of democracy.  In the fundamentalist and exclusivist world, there are those that are worthy of love and tolerance and those who are not.  The criteria used to determine these distinctions are based on a fixed set of moral principles dictated by religion and religious authorities. 
Speaking of fundamentalist religions, Locke said, “they only ask to be tolerated by the magistrate so long, until they find themselves strong enough to effect it” (55).  Ironically, the multiculturalism and tolerance extended by the state, that they wish to in many ways abolish, is exactly what permits them have a voice in the first place. Debate with the Christian Right is pointless.  They cannot be reached through logical argument and conversation.  This movement is bent on the destruction of secular life.  They call for exclusion, cruelty and intolerance, and justify their war on the highest of moral principles, which will never be compromised.   We should not engage in dialogue with those who would deny us our rights without a moment’s hesitation.  All public dialogue must be built on a foundation of mutual respect and tolerance for differences of belief.  When this cannot be attained, a clash of ideologies ensues and it becomes instead of a conversation, a fight for survival. 
If this movement succeeds it will be because of those who treat this mass movement as if it were another legitimate player in an open society,  This is the awful paradox of tolerance.  There arise moments when those who would destroy the tolerance that makes an open society possible should no longer be tolerated.  They must be held accountable by institutions that maintain the free exchange of ideas and liberty (Hedges, 34). 
Passivity threatens the state and it threatens secular life.  Assertive secularism must become more active in our formal institutions.  “A change in the design of the formal rules may affect the costs and benefits of adhering to related informal rules, which can produce rapid informal institutional change” (Helmke and Levitsky, 735).  Through the creation of incentives, actors may abandon or modify the informal rule.  The time has come to recognize that the Christian Right is a serious threat to our democracy.  A passive secularism allows groups such as these to reap the benefits of tolerance whilst refraining from offering those benefits to others.  We must abolish intolerance. 

References
1.     Kuru, Ahmet, T. (2009). Secularism and State Policies Toward Religion: The United States, France and Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.     Locke, John. (2010). A Letter Concerning Toleration. LaVergne, TN: Ecco Print Editions.
3.     Hedges, Chris. (2006). American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. New York: Free Press.
4.     Geertz, Clifford. 1997. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
5.     Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby Eds. (1995). Fundamentalisms Comprehended. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.     Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. (2010). On the Social Contract. New York: Classic Books International. 
7.     Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
8.     Jackson, A. (Producer), Flemming, B. (Director). (2005). The God Who Wasn’t There: A Film Beyond Belief. United States of America: Beyond Belief Media.
9.     Helmke, Gretchen and Steven Levitsky. (2004). “Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda,” Perspectives on Politics 2 (4): 725-40.