My Opinion
Exploding mythical notions about the religious right

Though I doubt the correlation, it seems that when the U.S. economy declined in the late 1980s, the "moral majority" also lost its head of steam. Well, times have changed. The economy is now chugging along, and the moral majority has rebounded as well, though now we know it by a new nickname: "religious right."

Many people are less than encouraged by the latest press on the religious right. A prominent religious leader suggests that President Bill Clinton is associated with the death of White House aide Vincent Foster. Religious pro-lifers escalate violent attacks on abortion clinic employees. Some conservatives call for a constitutional amendment sanctioning school prayer. The effect: Some view the rise of the right as they would the rise of a U.S. fascist party.

Yet contrary to media ado, most people are just unfamiliar with the religious right. A prominent U.S. newspaper did a poll last year which showed that six out of 10 adults interviewed had not "heard or read much about conservative Christian groups that are active in politics, sometimes called the religious right." Others have heard more than they would have liked.

Either way, the religious right is back and trying to flex its political muscles. And for those reading only the news stories mentioned above, first impressions are running negative.

Problem is, the current negative perception caters to two popular myths about the religious right. Secularists have promoted the first myth. The religious right has hoisted the second myth itself.

Myth No. 1: The religious right is a uniform group of zealots.

This myth is a product of that tendency we have to label those who disagree with our position. We usually choose a nickname which dehumanizes the opposition in order to squeeze them into a convenient political punching bag. The phrase "religious right" seems to have been calculated to evoke images of the Shah taking over Iran. When will we realize that tossing stereotypes -- a la junior high -- is fruitless and childish?

Many on the so-called religious right have done the same thing. I'm told a bumper sticker popular during the 1992 presidential campaign read, "A Vote For Bill Clinton Is A Sin Against God." Neither categorization is useful.

There is a better way. Contrary to popular opinion -- including some expressed on this page -- the religious right is not a band of violent religious dogmatists. That is, no more than all feminists are violent man-haters. Let's try this definition on for size: The religious right is the spot where many who profess faith in Christ find that their beliefs intersect with the American political culture.

If we can address the issue this way, we'll have more room for discussion on issues of substance -- namely why one arrives at the positions he or she does -- and far less name-calling and side-taking. The alternati

Yale University Professor Stephen Carter agrees. According to a recent article, Carter asserts in his latest book, The Culture of Disbelief, that "basing one's positions on religious beliefs is no worse than basing them on any other philosophy of life." I'm not sure that's a new idea, but it is worth remembering. How sad if the voices of truth were ignored solely because they were part of the "religious right."

Myth No. 2: Christians are primarily political animals.

Many churchgoers still seem to think their first calling is political activism. It's not a new myth though: Christ himself confronted the issue. "My kingdom is not of this world," Christ told Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea. However, although Pilate seems to have understood, many Christians are still confusing the two kingdoms.

If, alternatively, Christians are to take a proper stand, we must accept that the fate of the Kingdom of God does not depend on the success -- or failure -- of a political party. Christ entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey. I am not endorsing either party here; let's simply remember this: One's voting record is clearly not the litmus test of spirituality.

The challenge for Christians is to take advantage of our numerous freedoms without elevating politics to primacy or employing base political tactics. It's a delicate line to walk, but, again as Colson says, walk it we must. Freedom and pluralism are the benefits of a wisely framed Constitution, not gods to be manipulated for selfish gain. Healthy involvement by Christians will benefit the political culture, but pontification and grandstanding -- as if we could legislate our way to utopia -- will quickly spoil it.

There are important questions today which need to be discussed. Christians have much to say and much which needs to be heard. The dialogue can do without the thoughtless trotting out of religious right rhetoric. Yet Christians must admit that, if need be, we can do without a political platform.