Other Essays

15. Intolerance

Another interesting aspect of the Religious Right is its intolerance towards other religions. Since the Religious Right is driven by the fundamentalist movement, the natural urge of which is to separate themselves from all those that are in error, there is nothing surprising about the fact that the Religious Right considers other religions to be false. Pat Robertson has said:

The concept that one God, "Thou shall have no other gods before me", will somehow upset a Hindu, that's tough luck! America was founded as a Christian nation. Our institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being, a Being after the Bible. And we as Americans believe in the god of the Bible. And the fact that somebody comes with what amounts to an alien religion to these shores doesn't mean that we're going to give up all of our cherished religious beliefs to accommodate a few people who happen to believe in something else (People for the American Way, "Right Wing Organizations: Christian Coalition").

Most of the Religious Right's power is coming from Southern WASPs, and from hate groups like the John Birch Society, and the fundamentalists have a long history of anti-Semitism, racism, and bigotry. In the 1920s, the fundamentalists said that to be 100% American, one has to be Christian, which meant that all other religions were not "pure" Americans. In the 1930s, Gerald Winrod touted his anti-Semitic drivel, and praised Hitler. Later, Billy James Hargis called Martin Luther King a "stinking racial agitator," and said that segregation is a God-ordained law. It is not surprising that the Religious Right considers Judaism to be a false religion. Dr. Bailey Smith, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said at the National Affairs Briefing in 1980, which was attended by the presidential candidate Reagan, and covered by over 400 journalists and all the major television networks, that:

It is interesting at great political rallies how you have a Protestant to pray, a Catholic to pray, and then you have a Jew to pray. With all due respect to those dear people, my friends, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew (Martin, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, p. 215).

This, however, does not denote anti-Semitism, but merely states that Judaism is a false religion. And, as this Paper will show, it is not the only false religion.

With regard to Islam, the position of the Religious Right is clear: God and Allah are not the same thing. Pat Robertson says, on his program, The 700 Club:

Under no circumstances is Jehovah, the God of the Bible, and Allah, of the Koran, the same. First of all, the God of the Bible is a God of love and redemption, who sent His Son into the world to die for our sins. Allah tells people to die for him in order to get salvation, but there is no understanding of salvation. Allah was the moon god from Mecca. That is why Islam has the crescent moon. The flag of Turkey has a crescent moon with a star in it. Well, the crescent moon is because Allah was the moon god, and that is the deal. But we don't serve a moon god. We serve the God of creation, the Creator of everything…To translate Allah as God is wrong. When you see something in there and it says Allah, you translate it Allah. Don't call it God because it is different. God is Elohim. He is the Creator, the Jehovah God, Yahweh. Yahweh of the Old Testament was the Father who brought forth Jesus into the world ("Are God and Allah the Same?").

This statement, that "Allah tells people to die for him in order to get salvation," is common among the Religious Right, especially after September 11, since the fundamentalists try to portray Islam as a "bad" religion. Jack T. Chick, the creator of Big Daddy, and other comic book tracts, also has an opinion about Islam. In his tract Allah Had No Son, a Christian fundamentalist defies an angry Muslim, and converts him to Christianity. The Muslim is portrayed as evil and greedy, and Islam is portrayed as dangerous. According to Chick, Muslims expect to have "a Muslim flag to fly over the White House by 2010," and England was brought "to her knees" by Islam.

Another religion the Religious Right hates is Catholicism. According to them, the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. Jack Chick has another tract dedicated to that. According to him, "Neither the great Whore nor the pope cares for your soul…it's just religious show biz" (Man in Black). This hatred of Catholics comes from the Protestant tradition of viewing the Pope as the Antichrist, and the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon.

Finally, the "religion" that worries most fundamentalists is atheism. Because atheism is essentially the lack of a belief in a Supreme Being, the fundamentalists consider it the antipaper of Christianity, and are opposed to it. In their opinion, atheism is the creation of the devil.

According to the Religious Right, Satan's first attack on Christianity happened when he created communism. Billy James Hargis illustrates this view by saying:

Make no mistake about it. The Communists are winning. Hitler died; Nazism died with him. Mussolini died; Fascism died with him. Tojo died; Japanese militarism died with him. Stalin is dead; COMMUNISM LIVES ON. Lenin is dead; COMMUNISM LIVES ON. Why? Because Communism is a satanic weapon more powerful than the atom bomb, hydrogen bomb, cobalt bomb, or all of them combined, to bring about the seven-year Tribulation Period in which the whole world will worship Satan and his son, the anti-Christ, who will be the leader of a godless world government, and his religious counter-part, the "false prophet," the false Messiah (Utter and Storey, The Religious Right…, p. 95).

However, as it became clear that American democracy is in no danger of collapsing due to the subversive activities of the communists, the Religious Right had found itself a new enemy. Tim LaHaye speaks:

If the atheistic, amoral, one-world humanists succeed in enslaving our country, that missionary outlet [America] will eventually be terminated. As a Christian and a pastor, I am deeply concerned that this ministry be extended. The eternal souls of millions of people depend on us to supply them with the good news. In addition, I am concerned that the 50 million children who will grow up in America during the next generation will have access to the truth, rather than the heresies of humanism (Utter and Storey, The Religious Right…, p. 102).

The Religious Right is very adamant about the "evils" of secular humanism. They claim that it is responsible for all the moral decay in America. Obviously, the reason for that is because humanism does not endorse the Judeo-Christian values. So, what is the solution for this problem? Tim LaHaye goes on to give the answer.

A humanist is a humanist is a humanist! That is, he believes as a humanist, thinks as a humanist, acts as a humanist, and makes decisions as a humanist. Whether he is a politician, government official, or educator, he does not think like a pro-moral American, but like a humanist. Consequently, he is not fit to govern us or to train our young (Utter and Storey, The Religious Right…, p. 103).

Bill Banuchi seems to agree: "We must love and pray for the Atheists and Agnostics but we must never allow them into positions of leadership in our nation ‘under God,'" he writes in "One Nation Under God." It is clear that the Religious Right feels threatened by secular humanism, and is willing to go to great lengths to stop it.

But what exactly does the Religious Right have in mind? They are unable to distinguish the difference between "God" and "morality," and in their opinion America is a Christian nation. "The Constitution, as far as we are concerned, is a Christian document," writes Gary Jarmin in the 1980 issue of Christian Century. Once again, Bill Banuchi of the Christian Coalition agrees: "Only someone who purposely refuses to see truth would say God has no place in our public institutions" ("Separation of Church and State"). The Religious Right does not recognize the separation of church and state. They do not tolerate ideas that contradict their ideas of what's right, and try to silence them. They do not tolerate religions other than Christianity. There was another group in American history that tried to do the same things: the Puritans. Like the Religious Right, they ostracized those that did not fit in, and like the Religious Right, they tried to build the perfect nation. Is this where America is heading?

There is, however, an even scarier prospect. In the 1970s, a group known as Christian Reconstructionists emerged. Their basic premise was that belief that the moral laws of the Old Testament are still binding today. This idea states that only Old Testament laws specifically fulfilled in the New Testament are non-binding (such as sacrificial laws, ceremonial laws and dietary laws). The moral Law of God is still the ethical standard for governing individuals and society (Rogers, "What is Theonomy?"). The Reconstructionists are seeking to establish a form of government called a "theonomy," that is that society should be governed by Biblical law. William Martin describes how a reconstructed America might look:

The federal government would play no role in regulating business, public education, or welfare. Indeed, if it survived at all, its functions would likely be limited to delivering the mail and providing some measure of national defense. Some government would be visible at the level of counties, each of which would be protected by a fully armed militia, but citizens would be answerable to church authorities on most matters subject to regulation. Inheritance and gift taxes would be eliminated, income taxes would not exceed ten percent—the biblical tithe—and social security would disappear. Public schools would be abolished in favor of home-schooling arrangements, and families would operate on a strict patriarchal pattern. The only people permitted to vote would be members of "biblically correct" churches. Most notably, a theonomic order would make homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, propagation of false doctrine, and incorrigible behavior by disobedient children subject to the death penalty, preferably administered by stoning (p. 353)

And the Reconstructionists seem to confirm this theory. Jay Rogers writes:

Are you saying that all of the moral laws of the Old Testament are applicable to modern society? What about Old Testament laws that require stoning, such as Exodus 21:17, "And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

The question about incorrigible children is a common one. The so-called "harshness" of this punishment is often posed to refute the idea of theonomy as the basis for civil law. However, I know that this law and its punishment under the Old Covenant was just because God is just. Therefore, I ask, what has changed under the New Covenant so that the law and its punishment are now unjust? Has God changed? No! Has the Law changed? Jesus said: Not one jot! Therefore I ask: Why not now? Perhaps the problem is with us and not with the law?

However, I will attempt to explain this. We are talking about incorrigibility here. Cursing one's parents does not mean simply swearing. What is implied here is far more serious. Incorrigibility would be required to be proven before the local civil elders before the child could be executed. It would need to be demonstrated that the child is out of control and will not obey his parents even when the most serious punishment -- death -- is threatened.

In the United States of America, in this century, there were laws on the books in some states that said that a thief could be put to death for repeat offenses. This goes beyond what the Bible prescribes, but we see the same principle at work -- capital punishment for incorrigibility.

Rebellion against one's parents is listed together with the most heinous crimes in Romans. In this case, if he persisted in his rebellion against God, it would be the responsibility of the civil elders to deal with him. Isn't it likely that such a rebel would ultimately be put on trial for some other capital offense and be put to death?

The family is one of God's governmental units. Rebellion against the government is commensurate to treason. Today, we have no problem with seeing treason against the civil government as a capital crime. The problem is that we have a low view of the family today. The family is actually a higher form of government than the state and deserves greater protection. Rebellion against the family is an expression of rebellion against God's first established form of government and therefore against God himself.

Capital crimes against the family include rebellion to parents, homosexuality and adultery. Sound harsh? Then what you are saying, in effect, is that God is harsh and that treason against the family is "not as bad" as treason against the state.

The Reconstructionists wish to establish a barbaric theocracy, and they have the level of tolerance of Pastor Fred Phelps:

We are not looking for a "voice a the table" nor are we seeking "equal time" with the godless promoters of pornography, abortion, safe-sodomy subsidies, socialism, etc. We want them silenced and punished according to God's Law-Word (Rogers, "What is Theonomy?").

Which, as we have learnt before, means stoning. It is safe to say that the Reconstructionist movement is the American equivalent of the Taliban, and their views on modern civilization are the same. But, if one wonders, what does this have to do with the Religious Right? The answer to that becomes clear in the next paragraph:

It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought with any accuracy. Because it is so genuinely radical, most leaders of the Religious Right are careful to distance themselves from it. At the same time, it clearly holds some appeal for many of them. One undoubtedly spoke for others when he confessed, "Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same." In addition, several key leaders have acknowledged an intellectual debt to the theonomists. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony [the founder of the movement] has appeared Kennedy's television program and the 700 Club several times. Pat Robertson makes frequent use of "dominion" language; his book The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomic elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he "would only bring Christians and Jews into the government," as well as when he later wrote, "There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world (Martin, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, p. 354).

This shows that the Religious Right is quite favorable to the Reconstructionist ideas. And why shouldn't they be? They both believe that America should be governed by Judeo-Christian ideals.

However, one thing is clear. Neither the Puritan "City upon a Hill," nor the Reconstructionist theonomy, are endorsed in the Constitution, which was established on the secularist ideals of the Enlightenment, not the religious ideals of the Bible. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State," wrote Thomas Jefferson, and no matter how the fundamentalists stress that the Constitution is a Christian document, it is not.

Continue to Page 16

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: