The Christian Wrong

    Among the aftershocks of the presidential election are fulminations from the Christian right. Leaders there say they won't abandon efforts to have the government of the United States enforce their religious doctrine.
    The Roman Catholic Church weighed in through the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano,  and Vatican radio.  The church re-asserted its opposition to initiatives legalizing same-sex marriage.  A front-page newspaper article said, "The church is called upon to present itself as the lone critic of modernity, the only check ... to the breakup of anthropological structures  on which human society was founded."    In a radio editorial, a Vatican spokesman asked sarcastically why gay marriage proponents don't go ahead and push for legal recognition of polygamy as well. 
   The Protestant right also is sobered by losses on gay marriage and abortion issues.  Leaders there -- sounding more like political consultants than churchmen -- say they must find ways to broaden their base.
    Teachers in my day would have cited the Vatican's radio gibe as an example of the straw man technique.  With it, a speaker attacks a caricature of an adversary's stated view rather than dealing forthrightly with what the adversary really said.  This tactic can be found in texts on debating -- also in studies of propaganda.
    The marriage  question being posed in America today has nothing to do with polygamy or, for that matter, with permitting human beings to marry saltshakers or shoehorns.  The question being posed is quite simple, and eminently fair: Should all American citizens living in long-term, monogamous commitments have equal rights under civil law?
    The eagerness of religious leaders for political clout is a threat to the integrity of democratic government, of course.  It also is a threat to the integrity of free religious practice in this country.  Once the door between religion and government is opened, it can be used by all comers,  and we cannot foresee what tomorrow's energized faction will be.
    This yen for secular power -- emphasis on both words -- also would appear to be fundamentally inconsistent with the original Christian message.  It warned religious leaders of that day against savoring earthly status, and against putting words in the mouth of the deity.  It warned that faith is not manifest in rule-mongering,  that the faithful life cannot be defined by a human hirearchy's authorized list of do's and don'ts.
   The Roman Catholic Church has amply demonstrated blindness to the difference between nourishing values and protecting its institutional grip.  Conservative American Protestants have entered similar territory with leaders who invite the courtship of politicians, and with interest groups that are only lobbies in fancy dress.
    Although the true believers of the right have not been able to take over federal policy, they have tainted our politics. Their influence has placed the Republican Party in disarray. And they've given us a renewal of candidates as moral preceptors: A vote for me is a vote for morality. A vote against me is ... . 
    The implication is clear, and it is especially corrosive when it is peddled by candidates who actually believe it.  The very concept of disagreement becomes disreputable.  Adversaries are not merely opposed, they are reviled. Settled discussion of the public interest becomes impossible.
      Exhibit A: Our recent election.  As the Republican Party tries to make something useful rise from the ashes of that defeat, it has an opportunity to help the country by insisting that the Christian right learn proper restraint. In this, the GOP would be a liberalizing influence, in the broadest, non-partisan sense of that term. What nice irony that would be for a party that has caused and received so much harm through its obeisance to right-wing zealotry.