At least one prominent evangelical conservative says they are, and that the right has lost:
Leading evangelicals have admitted that their association with George W. Bush has not only hurt the cause of social conservatives but contributed to the failure of the key objectives of their 30-year struggle.
James Dobson, 72, who resigned recently as head of Focus on the Family – one of the largest Christian groups in the country – and once denounced the Harry Potter books as witchcraft, acknowledged the dramatic reverse for the religious Right in a farewell speech to staff.
“We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action,” he said.
“We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”
Despite changing the political agenda for a generation, and helping push the Republicans to the Right, evangelicals have won only minor victories in limiting the availability of abortion. Meanwhile the number of states permitting civil partnerships between homosexuals is rising, and the campaign to restore prayer to schools after 40 years – a decision that helped create the Moral Majority – has got nowhere.
Though the struggle will go on, the confession of Mr Dobson, who started his ministry from scratch in 1977, came amid growing concern that church attendance in the United States is heading the way of Britain, where no more than ten per cent worship every week.
Last month, of course, we learned that the fastest growing religious group in America is the group of people who say that have no religious beliefs at all. More importantly, though, this month’s weeks victories for gay marriage in Iowa and Vermont, along with the strong indication that there isn’t much support for a referendum overturning the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision, are only the latest demonstration of the fact that the religious right’s latest wedge issue isn’t working anymore.
I’m not saying that we’ll see the end of religion as a force in American politics anytime soon, but it’s becoming clear that the ability of groups like Dobson’s to use the political arena to advance their idea of what is right is waning significantly.
And that’s a good thing.
H/T: Liberal Values
Doug,
I wholeheartedly agree that the “religious right” has been very very hypocritical and detrimental to this country. However, I don’t think it is necessarily a “good thing” that the morals that these people where pushing are waning in this country.
I do not believe that there should be government intervention on personal choice (i.e. drug war, restrictions on who can and can not marry, prositution, etc.). People should have the freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want with whoever they want as long as it harms nobody else.
However, I do see that the erosion of morality in this country has been a bad thing, and does spill over into many different arenas (politics, religion, education, careers, etc.) I believe that there is a difference between liberty and libertine, and that being a libertine is just as harmful as being an extreme fundamentalist. Government can not control actions, but something has to set standards that we live by as a society…and I think that religious principles (and it doesn’t have to be JUST Christianity) can fill this void nicely. Most religions have a standard of living that puts others first, and in a free society where people are left to govern themselves you need that.
What do you think?
Benjamin,
I don’t disagree with you generally, although I will not that what some people call “libertinism” and “immorality” is purely a matter of personal opinion. There were people in the 1950s who considered Rock & Roll immoral, just as there are people who think the same thing about music today.
I realize that the issues you’re thinking about are probably more serious than music, but the point remains. When it comes to issues like this — concerning personal behavior, sex, and related topics — some people are conservative and some people are not. The great thing about living in a free society is that everyone is allowed to make those choices for themselves and, as long as they’re not doing anything that causes harm to another individual, the government has no place in regulating their conduct.
Now, of course, everyone will have to deal with the consequences of their behavior, but that’s the price you pay for being a free man.
Since the founding of the country, banks have been reliably serving the needs of American farmers and ranchers. Today, as the largest source of agriculture financing, banks continue to be in a strong position to continue serving farmers’ needs. Tricycle
“Now, of course, everyone will have to deal with the consequences of their behavior, but that’s the price you pay for being a free man.”
Though i agree with you two about your feelings towards government regulating morality, i have long held a worry regarding the degrading of traditional cultural and religious institutions that regulate behavior. In my ideal world, as far as government policy goes, this shouldn’t matter. However, thats not how reality works. Religion and cultural institutions throughout the majority of civilization have existed to regulate personal behavior for certain practical purposed. For example, marriage institutions reinforced couples staying together because in a sustenance farming society, having a bunch of single mothers with kids likely means they starve to death. Also, traditional views on sexual activity helped prevent births out of wedlock, which would likely result in the same thing. Now that these societal institutions have become weaker and going along with this example, we indeed have more single parents. Unfortunately what we all advocate in this scenario, that you should be free to do so but you should take responsibility, has not occurred. All we have seen is a corresponding increase in the welfare and nanny states. In this example, programs to take care of poor single mothers and their children.
Rather than becoming more free, all we have done is remove traditional societal institutions that regulated behavior and created a social safety net, and replaced them with a larger state that regulates behavior and provides a safety net. All we have done is replace the mechanism for control of behavior. There is an expression i heard once that was to the effect, “Women have thrown off the shackles of men just to replace them with their government sugar daddy.” The women’s liberation movement has created a lot of women looking for government programs.
Therefore, though i generally don’t agree with most of the political issues of the religious right and am happy that many of these are dying, I see the weakening of this movement and the associated cultural behavior as simply a move towards a larger, more expensive, and more intrusive government. I’ll point your attention to Europe where the state has advanced much more as traditional cultural institutions waned. We are moving in that direction. There just aren’t enough people in this country who fundamentally believe in freedom unfortunately and therefore, the political forces that have delayed our march down the road to serfdom over the past few decades have required a coalition with the religious right. That seems to be no more.
“Now, of course, everyone will have to deal with the consequences of their behavior, but that’s the price you pay for being a free man.”
Though i agree with you two about your feelings towards government regulating morality, i have long held a worry regarding the degrading of traditional cultural and religious institutions that regulate behavior. In my ideal world, as far as government policy goes, this shouldn’t matter. However, thats not how reality works. Religion and cultural institutions throughout the majority of civilization have existed to regulate personal behavior for certain practical purposed. For example, marriage institutions reinforced couples staying together because in a sustenance farming society, having a bunch of single mothers with kids likely means they starve to death. Also, traditional views on sexual activity helped prevent births out of wedlock, which would likely result in the same thing. Now that these societal institutions have become weaker and going along with this example, we indeed have more single parents. Unfortunately what we all advocate in this scenario, that you should be free to do so but you should take responsibility, has not occurred. All we have seen is a corresponding increase in the welfare and nanny states. In this example, programs to take care of poor single mothers and their children.
Rather than becoming more free, all we have done is remove traditional societal institutions that regulated behavior and created a social safety net, and replaced them with a larger state that regulates behavior and provides a safety net. All we have done is replace the mechanism for control of behavior. There is an expression i heard once that was to the effect, “Women have thrown off the shackles of men just to replace them with their government sugar daddy.” The women’s liberation movement has created a lot of women looking for government programs.
Therefore, though i generally don’t agree with most of the political issues of the religious right and am happy that many of these are dying, I see the weakening of this movement and the associated cultural behavior as simply a move towards a larger, more expensive, and more intrusive government. I’ll point your attention to Europe where the state has advanced much more as traditional cultural institutions waned. We are moving in that direction. There just aren’t enough people in this country who fundamentally believe in freedom unfortunately and therefore, the political forces that have delayed our march down the road to serfdom over the past few decades have required a coalition with the religious right. That seems to be no more.
forget that first paragraph in the first post… messed up on coppying and pasting.
EJ,
Then I think it’s fair to say that the biggest mistake the Religious Right made was tying their mission so closely to politics.
Doug,
Your response to EJ was perfect. The “Religious Right” needs to focus more on change through personal relationships since that is the only way those individuals will truly mean what they are doing as opposed to forcing them through government to do it. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the religious right’s leaders are more interested in political power as opposed to their religious message being spread.
I do agree with you that some people’s definition of “libertine” might be different form others. What I was focusing on was more the so called “golden rule.” I feel that many of our problems (including the hypocrasy of the political religious right) has been from a lack of applying this, and I think religion (regardless of what that might be) generally aims to instill this in people and I think that is needed in a free society.