For the most part, these groups' activities have confined themselves to the political and legal realms, pushing for everything from Bill Clinton's impeachment to the concept of the so-called "law and society" school of legal thought.
Now, however, they are moving into the churches.
Many non-churchgoing folks tend to lump all Christians in with fundamentalists, in no small part because the latter have a penchant for self-promotion and have come to dominate Christian faith in the popular realm, as well as a peculiar tendency to claim for themselves the mantle of "true Christianity." But the reality is that many mainstream churches, particularly Protestants, are overt advocates for progressive causes, and have been for generations.
The right-wing sugar daddies who fueled the rise of conservatism are now taking the same poisonous tactics of personal attacks and smear campaigns that have proved so effective in the political realm into these same churches -- with the clear intent of silencing their traditional liberalism.
The main instrument in this effort is the Institute of Religion and Democracy, which already has helped wreak havoc among Episcopalians by fueling the hysteria about the recent ordination of a gay bishop by the church.
That is only one facet of its campaign. In the United Methodist Church, the IRD is attempting similar tactics, fanatically persecuting a handful of open homosexual ministers for coming out of the closet. The most notorious instances of this have involved a couple of gay pastors at a Methodist church in Seattle roughly a half-mile from my home.
This is somewhat personal for me; I was baptized and raised United Methodist, and at one time came close to following the path of one of my chief role models, the pastor of my church, into the ministry. I attend a different United Methodist church in my neighborhood, but the fellowships of the two congregations are close. Everyone in the congregations knows the two ministers in question were both highly effectively and much beloved.
What's especially noteworthy about the IRD is where its money comes from. Media Transparency has the goods on their sources, which reads like a who's who of right-wing political foundations: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Coors family's Castle Rock Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and most of all, the ubiquitous Scaife Foundations, whose funding comes from the fortune of the biggest right-wing sugar daddy of them all, Richard Mellon Scaife. [More on Scaife below.]
Allen Brill at The Right Christians posted about this back in July, and the trend has not gone away. (Allen has also posted about the connection of this same cast of characters to the potential manipulation of voting technologies.) Furthermore, as Chip Berlet recently detailed in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, these same groups have a long habit of advocating not merely conservative causes but many that are in fact part of the extremist right.
Andrew J. Weaver's recent piece for the Martin Marty Center, "The Fighting Methodists," attempted to assess the reasons for this assault on the mainstream churches:
- The answer is that, although the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the Episcopal Church total only about 14 million in membership, they have been and remain a powerful and influential voice for moderate and progressive social values in American society. Almost 30 percent of the members of the U.S. Congress belong to one of these three denominations as well as disproportionate numbers of well-educated and progressive leaders who advocate for the poor, civil and human rights, environmental protection, and a responsible foreign policy. The activities and leadership of mainline Protestant churches are linked to the social conscience of the nation and contribute to civil discourse.
The Methodists -- particularly those of us who are proud of the church's tradition of standing up for progressive causes as part of the ministry of Christ -- are beginning to fight back. Notably, a group of church members is raising the alarm about the threat to the church. They have compiled a text titled United Methodism At Risk: A Wake-Up Call, which observes:
- Only now is the depth and scope of the threat emerging clearly. Those within the denomination who value and affirm diversity within the church have viewed these groups as simply having one perspective among many. They have trusted that all persons of good faith --liberal or conservative, evangelical or otherwise-- must be part of the dialogue as we seek to understand God's truth and to manifest that in our daily living.
We can no longer afford to think in such terms. To continue to view "conservative renewal groups" as but one voice among others is naively to risk waking up in a vastly different church one day soon.
The ultimate goal of these groups is to control The United Methodist Church. Their strategy is to attain top leadership positions in the denomination. One tactic they use is spreading misleading and inflammatory charges about groups and individuals to United Methodists across the country. They indulge in character assassination and seek to drive the church apart by the use of wedge issues, calculated to cause dissension and division. Their desire is to impose not to dialogue.
One of the more bizarre attacks on church progressives detailed in the book, by the way, is this cautionary tale of a pastor accused of contributing to occultism.
As Weaver observes:
- It is time, in other words, for "fighting Methodists" to make a comeback lest their tolerance and Christian charity be turned against them and used to undermine their churches and further the social ends of the right wing's radical ideology.
The issue is one that should not merely raise concerns among Methodists, or Episcopalians, or any kind of churchgoers. It should raise major alarms among even secular folk with no attachment to any faith -- because it is a significant sign of just how far the right is willing to go to control our beliefs.
Freedom of religion affects every American. And politically driven attacks on it, funded by corporatists with no real interest in anything other than crushing liberalism -- especially in the guise of "faith-based" organizations who seek to turn religion in America into a monoculture -- is every bit as insidious as if the government itself attempted to control the churches.
More about Scaife
Richard Mellon Scaife is one of the more insidious characters to emerge on the American scene in generations, in no small part because he wields his fortune like a club. There is little doubt he bears a deep animus toward liberalism. More important, Scaife (along with the Bradley, Coors and Olin folks) has been one of the major players in the dominance of the conservative movement in America today.
Here are a few handy links for more info on Scaife:
Scaife's many foundations. The Washington Post also has a page devoted to stories about Scaife's activities.
A CNN profile of Scaife from the impeachment brouhaha.
Chip Berlet's earlier report on Scaife's activities.
A Southern Poverty Law Center report on Scaife's funding of the far-right, anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Here's a Scaife Web page from the Religious Freedom Coalition.
An inside view of Scaife's operations, including the revelation that he was behind the so-called "Jesus freaks" of the early '70s.
Scaife is clearly prone to believing far-right conspiracy theories. For instance, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported this amusing tale:
- Tribune-Review Publisher Richard Mellon Scaife ordered editors to keep coverage involving the Pittsburgh Pirates off the front page and once dispatched a reporter to northern Pennsylvania to follow up a tip that the Russian military had invaded Allegheny National Forest, according to a report in an upcoming issue of Brill's Content magazine.
… The reporter assigned to investigate reports of Russian troops was Joe Mandak. Mandak yesterday confirmed the Brill's Content account and said he spent a day traveling in the state's northern counties, asking local residents about Russian troops being stationed in the forest and the troops' family members being assigned to jobs at area Wal-Marts.
"Everybody looked at me with a blank stare," Mandak said yesterday.
Mandak said editors made it clear the assignment had come from Scaife.
Karen Rothmeyer wrote a profile of Scaife in Salon that thoroughly outlined his pursuit of Clinton. Rothmeyer a few years before had penned a thorough and devastating profile of Scaife for Columbia Journalism Review titled "Citizen Scaife, including this sidebar, which includes the following nugget:
- A few minutes later he appeared at the top of the Club steps. At the bottom of the stairs, the following exchange occurred:
"Mr. Scaife, could you explain why you give so much money to the New Right?"
"You fucking Communist cunt, get out of here."
Obviously Scaife is a deeply religious fellow with a keen interest in Christian principles. His version of the Bible must somehow omit that line about the eye of the needle.
One other thing: People who criticize Scaife have a nasty habit of winding up dead. And so, interestingly, did the only person to successfully interview him: John F. Kennedy Jr.
Not that I'm paranoid or anything. Just observing.
[Thanks to Tamara Baker for bringing this to my attention.]
No comments:
Post a Comment