On Wednesday night, the Center for Inquiry of Michigan held a presentation titled "The Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms." The presentation--held at the Women's City Club in downtown Grand Rapids--featured a lecture by attorney Edward Tabash, who is the chair of the national legal committee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a board member at the Center for Inquiry, and a chair of the Council for Secular Humanism's First Amendment Task Force.
Tabash began his talk by telling the audience that the country faces a stark choice--it can be either a modern secular society or a theocracy. He said that the Religious Right is seeking to establish a government that will favor the rights of believers over non-believers. According to Tabash, there are currently four justices on the United States Supreme Court who would vote to give preferences to believers. Tabash asserted that the current split on the Supreme Court is of the utmost importance and he repeatedly stressed that the make-up of the Supreme Court is an essential battleground for those fighting the Religious Right.
Tabash continued by stating that the Religious Right has attempted to bolster its position that believers should get preference over non-believers by claiming that the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation" based on religious principles. However, Tabash challenged this interpretation of history by explaining that the intent behind the First Amendment and the so-called "Founding Fathers." He reminded the audience that there is no mention of God in the United States Constitution and that there is only one mention of religion (which is negative). James Madison--the primary author of the First Amendment--repeatedly expressed his opposition to granting preference to people of religious faith. In addition to citing a number of specific statements, Tabash told the crowd that the Senate rejected alternate language for the First Amendment that would have given preference to believers.
Tabash argued that the Religious Right has been able to take over the Republican party and use it to steer the country towards its agenda over the past twenty-seven years. While this is partially true, the Religious Right's relationship with the Republican Party is somewhat tenuous and fluctuates between embrace and rejection, as can be seen this year in the Religious Right's debate over the Republican candidates for the GOP's presidential nomination. To prove his assertion, Tabash cited many statements by prominent Republican politicians, including Reagan's 1984 statement that "America needs God more than God needs America, the Texas Republican Party's assertion that the United States is a Christian Nation, and President George W. Bush's July 2004 assertion that God speaks through him. During the question and answer period, Tabash downplayed the debate within the Religious Right over which candidate to endorse for president, claiming that the Religious Right is using the debate to push candidates further to the right while knowing that they already have "what counts" in terms of getting judges sympathetic with the Religious Right nominated.
Tabash briefly outlined a few areas in which the Religious Right has been active, including opposition to contraception, abortion, public schools, LGBT rights, sex education, and faith-based initiatives. In all of these areas, the Religious Right seeks to preference the rights and beliefs of people of faith over non-believers while imposing their theocratic agenda on the rest of the country. Tabash said that in order to challenge the Religious Right, people of diverse backgrounds have to come together to ensure the separation of church and state. According to Tabash, the best way to challenge the Religious Right is to ensure that the next President will appoint Supreme Court justices and lower court judges respecting separation. He said that one more Religious Right judge will shift the country from a secular society to a theocracy.
Unfortunately, Tabash's analysis of the Religious Right was fairly simplistic and his presentation lacked much of the nuance in analysis that could have helped people more effectively combat the agenda of the right. Throughout his presentation, Tabash only mentioned two organizations--Focus on the Family and Moral Majority--and made little mention of specifics about either organization. He did cite outlandish quotes from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell--a common tactic by opponents of the Religious Right--but he failed to place these quotes within the larger context of how the Religious Right is able to effectively organize and mobilize people. Unfortunately, his comments created the impression that the Religious Right is simply "crazy" rather than explaining how they are actually strategic--and frequently shrewd--organizers. A more serious appraisal of the Religious Right briefly came through when he mentioned that the Religious Right has a wealth of legal organizations dedicated to overturning separations of church and state. This comment was made within the context of a controversy in Berkley, Michigan over the display of a government sponsored nativity scene.
Moreover, Tabash's presentation made no mention of the local Religious Right. The West Michigan Religious Right has provided millions of dollars to Religious Right organizations in Michigan and the United States more generally, and has arguably been a significant force in the development of the right's agenda. Had Tabash mentioned these connections, he could have grounded his talk in the local community, while at the same time, a discussion the diversity of Religious and other Far Right groups supported by prominent families that constitute the Religious Right in West Michigan would have pushed Tabash towards a more comprehensive analysis.
