Trivializing FFWPU mass weddings and underestimating the Christian Right
an extract from Chapter 8 of Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy by Frederick Clarkson (1997) pages 181-185
… Similarly, the analysis by Stephen Carter, [who teaches at Yale Law School and wrote The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion] of how mainstream press reporting trivializes religion often misses the mark. He cites, for example, the “general cultural amusement” over the mass weddings presided over by Rev. & Mrs. Sun Myung Moon.72 Carter is correct that some bemused reporting may trivialize the faith of those who subordinate themselves to clerical authority in this way. However, Carter ignores the serious issues raised by the theocratic goals and practices of the Unification Church and how the mass weddings figure into the church’s larger plans to eliminate democracy, pluralism, and religious freedom.
As was discussed in Chapter 3 [of Eternal Hostility], Sun Myung Moon has declared that he and his wife, Hak Ja Han Moon, “are the True Parents of all humanity... we are the Savior, the Lord of the Second Advent, the Messiah.”73 And that “when it comes to our age, we must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world.” He has further explained that his aim is the “subjugation of the American government and population.”74 There is copious literature on Moon’s record of predatory recruiting and indoctrination practices, his 30-year record of antidemocratic pronouncements and activities,75 the billions of dollars of assets of mysterious origin, the central role this small church plays in American life through its media, and on its business and political empire. In this light, Carter’s focus on the trivialization of the Unification Church by the superficial reporting on Moon’s mass weddings is breathtakingly shallow and fundamentally misguided.
Carter also fails to distinguish between oppressive attacks on religion aimed at curtailing religious expression, on the one hand, and critical debate about religion generally, and specifically religion in politics, on the other. Debating the latter issues is healthy in a country where active theocratic movements are working to undermine the principles of the enlightenment vital to meaningful democracy.
The Christian Right: Weak and Divided? Carter extends his concern from the supposed excesses of secular society to how society should view the Christian Right. However, this discussion is hampered by his apparent lack of knowledge of the history, ideology and players of the Christian Right. Although Carter was shocked by the Christian Right’s performance at the 1992 Republican national convention in Houston, he was unable to explain either how this came about or what it really meant. In the first chapter of The Culture of Disbelief he derided the “expression of some loud fears about the influence of the weak and divided Christian Right.”76 Oddly, the final chapter’s discussion of the new-found political strength of the Christian Right is titled “Religious Fascism.” Unfortunately, Carter failed to define what he meant by religious fascism, let alone its relevance to his discussion.
Still, Carter’s concern for religious expression is rooted in the best of American contributions to advancing this principle. He calls not for “mere tolerance,” but for religious “equality,” because tolerance is extended at the whim of the majority and can be withdrawn. “[I]n a nation where 85 percent of adults identify themselves as Christians,” he explains, “it may seem easier to speak of toleration of Jews and other non-Christians than to speak of equality of any practical sort. But the language of tolerance is the language of power.”77 Non-Christians, he points out, “rightly object to language suggesting that Christians (or anyone else) should ‘tolerate’ them. The fundamental message of the First Amendment is one of religious equality—a message to which the idea of majority and minority religions should be bitter anathema.”78
One glaring example of Carter’s good intentions thwarted by his superficial approach is a too-brief discussion of the 1992 flap over Mississippi Republican governor Kirk Fordice’s public claim that the U.S. is a Christian Nation.79 Carter summarizes the episode as it appeared in the media, but makes no mention of the Christian Nationalist authors, leaders and constituencies that give the term its contemporary meaning. Senior politicians rarely make declarations about such things unless they are speaking to and for a significant constituency. There was much that could have been said in this context, for example, about the role of the Christian Coalition in Fordice’s election, or the significance of such Christian historical revisionists as David Barton and Gary DeMar.80
Nevertheless, “It is painful to me as a Christian,” Carter concluded, “to watch the perversion of [Christ’s message of love and inclusion]... by the far right wing of my own faith, into a call for holy war—a call which even if metaphorical, can only raise the terrifying imagery of the wholesale slaughter of the crusades.”81 While the specter of religious warfare is painful for everyone. Carter does not address the role of Christian Nationalism as an integral and animating doctrine of the Christian Right, and thus much more than a metaphor, that could lead to just such a ‘holy war.’ Indeed, it was precisely the grim history of religious nationalism, religious warfare and Christian persecution, of not only minority religions but fellow Christians, that led the framers of the Constitution to seek to create a constitutional structure for, and national ethos of, religious equality.
It is the cultivation (if not always successful implementation) of this ethos of religious equality over the past 200 years that has been one of the most extraordinary cultural projects in the history of the world. The Christian Nationalists of the 18th century didn’t like the Constitution when it was written, and their political and theological descendants don’t like it today.
The Defeat of the Christian Right? Carter correctly concludes that the “defeat of the Christian Right— if indeed defeat is to be” will be a matter of alerting “a sufficiency of one’s fellow citizens of the danger, creating a democratic counter insurgency. And then, harder still, one must get this majority to the polls on election day.”82 However, political victory over the formidable Christian Right requires knowledge and accurate assessments of its positions and prospects—something Carter does not much provide. For example, early in The Culture of Disbelief, he argues that “one must be wary of attributing too much influence to the emergent religious right. The Reverend Pat Robertson’s efforts to gain the 1988 Republican presidential nomination was of interest mainly to the mass media...”83
As argued in the chapter “Neither Juggernaught nor Joke,” he is correct that it is important not to unwarily “attribute too much influence” to the religious right. But it is just as important not to naively— and inaccurately—dismiss their actual strength and potential.
Indicative of a larger problem in Carter’s reporting is his use of the word “Reverend” in reference to Pat Robertson. Robertson resigned his Baptist ministry to run for president in 1988, and does not, nor is he entitled to, use the honorific, “Reverend.” More importantly, it is well known that Robertson has for many years been positioning himself to exert political power in the U.S. The run for president was integral to the building of a political movement, and thus was of far more than passing interest to those who follow religion and politics, especially in the GOP. Robertson actually beat George Bush in the Iowa Republican caucuses in 1988, and did well in the disputed Michigan precinct caucuses. Although the campaign unraveled after Robertson’s poor showing in the “Super Tuesday” primaries in the South, Iowa and Michigan provided clues about Robertson’s long-term political significance.
The Robertson campaign served as an experiment and a building block in much the same way that Barry Goldwater’s unsuccessful 1964 campaign for president served as the cornerstone of the modern conservative movement. In light of Carter’s claim that Robertson’s 1988 campaign was a creature of the media, it is important to note that the same media generally missed the story of the rise of the Christian Coalition until well into the 1992 campaign season. Carter’s lack of knowledge of the on-the-ground history of this and related political phenomena undermines his media criticism and misdirects his “attitude” about religion in public life—which he says is the main subject of the book.84
The problem with Hunter’s and Carter’s books is not that they don’t have useful thoughts and information in them. These influential books pose special challenges to those who are committed to democracy, pluralism and religious freedom. Hunter is a partisan scholar from the Christian Right who is generally committed to civility, but who uses a facade of neutrality to mask that he’s stacking the deck of his argument. Carter is a legal scholar who disagrees with the Christian Right on most things,85 but hasn’t really studied it, and thus fails to locate the original and current threats to religious freedom from theocratic movements.
As long as such books are major sources of intellectual guidance to which people turn for insight into the Christian Right, misdirection, misinformation, misreporting and political mistakes will be the norm for every segment of society that follows them.86 James Davison Hunter offers some sound advice in this regard in Culture Wars. “As with military campaigns, cultural warfare is always decided over the pragmatic problems of strategy, organization and resources... The factions with the best strategies, most efficient organization, and access to resources will plainly have the advantage and very possibly, the ultimate victory.”87
Thus great care must be taken when reading material that will inform the strategy of a movement. ___________________________________ Notes
72. Frank S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations in the United States, Ninth Edition, 1990. Abingdon Press, pp. 25-26.
73. Sun Myung Moon, “Leaders Building World Peace,” Unification News, September 1992.
74. John Judis, “Rev. Moon’s Rising Political Influence: His Empire Is Spending Big Money To Try To Win Favor With Conservatives,” U.S. News and World Report, March 21, 1989.
75. See for example, Steve Hassan, Combating Cult Mind Control, Park Street Press, 1988; see also Flo Conway and Jim Seigelman, Snapping: America’s Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, Second Edition, Stillpoint Press, 1995.
76. Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion, Basic Books, 1993, p. 11.
77. Carter, op. cit., p. 96.
78. Carter, op. cit., p. 93.
79. Carter, op. cit., pp. 86-89.
80. See for example, Barton’s book To Pray or Not to Pray, (1988) and The Myth of Separation, (1992), WallBuilder Press, Aledo, TX. Both books were in wide circulation in Christian Right circles prior to the publication of The Culture of Disbelief.
81. Carter, op. cit., p. 90.
82. Carter, op. cit., p. 267.
83. Carter, op. cit., p. 19.
84. Carter, p. 15. “And through all of this trivializing rhetoric runs the subtle but unmistakable message: pray if you like; worship if you must, but whatever you do, do not on any account take your religion seriously. That rhetoric, and that message, are the subjects of this book. This book is not about law, but about attitudes—the attitude that we as a political society hold toward religion.”
85. Carter, p. 15. He agrees, with the Christian Right on “broad parental rights to exempt children from educational programs on religious grounds and participation by parochial schools in private school voucher programs...”
86. I hope that this essay will encourage people to seek out better information and analysis about the Christian Right — and to demand better than they usually get from the media. Personally I recommend the books and articles of knowledgeable writers like Russ Bellant, Chip Berlet, Robert Boston, Joe Conn, Sara Diamond, Jean Hardisty, Skipp Porteous, and Lenny Zeskind, among others who have studied this and related movements for many years. Their work is cited throughout the text, notes and resources section of this book. The Christian Right would be far less powerful today, if writers like these had received half of the media and scholarly attention accorded Hunter and Carter.
87. James Davison Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, Basic Books, 1991, p. 64.
________________________________________
Sun Myung Moon: “church and the state must become one”
U.S. Presidents Endorse Sun Myung Moon From ‘Spirit World’
The CIG constitution is the paperwork for what Fraser and every Moon org critic has warned was the Moon org’s goal all along
Hak Ja Han’s Cheon Il Guk Constitution is troubling
“Moon’s Law: God Is Phasing Out Democracy” by Frederick Clarkson
Missing Pieces of the Story of Sun Myung Moon by Frederick Clarkson
Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy
