Marriage traditionalists shoot the messaging

There's a consensus growing among marriage traditionalists that they have lost the political and public battles over same-sex marriage. Now, it seems, the fight is over. It's just a matter of time. Whether it was electoral losses that made it seem this way, or polls that show that there've been dramatic shifts of public opinion, or something else, pessimism has won.

There's not a consensus about why, though. There are evolving discussions -- fights? -- trying to come to some conclusion about this. Why did the conservatives lose this? Why did they lose so suddenly, so dramatically, so apparently irrevocably, but most especially just, why did they lose? Even a few years ago, it didn't seem so inevitable.

Nathan Hitchen, of the John Jay Institute, thinks he has the answer. Marriage traditionalists lost because they were too rational. They got carried away by the clear logic of their arguments, and forgot that arguments alone can't sway the body politic.

It wasn't the message. It was the messaging.

Hitchen writes:

Better arguments from natural law, while necessary and helpful, are unlikely to turn the tide of opinion because many people are not convinced rationally in the first place: television, songs, friends, and their own experiences shape their understanding of love and marriage. In short, we are shaped by unconscious influences, social and personal narratives, and emotion [...]. 

What persuades people falls outside the boundaries of classical or formal logic: emotion, deeply held narratives, stories, metaphorical thinking, and ideas that stick in people's minds. There are no mere 'facts' that make sense to an audience as a basis for further reasoning disconnected from the emotional network of beliefs they already hold about their identity.

Hitchen wants the religious right, et al, to learn to deploy emotions, narratives, metaphors, and other extra-logical forces. He thinks the case against same-sex marriage should be re-made, but this time not so strictly logically, not so dependent on theories of Natural Law.

Should happen, and can. The piece is billed a "primer," and offers strategies, practical advice, for winning this culture battle. Practical advice such as:

• Advocates should counter by telling bigger stories that include both sides in a way that repositions victim and victimizer and changes the hero. Take the revisionist story’s givens and make them not-givens.
• Pro-marriage messengers could tell personal stories Connection and Creativity plots that tell how they as children had problems that only fathers and mothers together could have solved, thereby generating emotional meaning unique to conjugal marriage. (Emphases original).

A few things:

1. Suggesting that your opponents haven't been persuaded by your arguments because they're immune to reason is not typically a persuasive argument. It's not a very likely to be appealing to those who have, in the last decade, changed their minds and come to accept or support same-sex marriage. To say people have rejected not just your reasoning, but reason itself, is, at best, demeaning to those you're trying to persuade.
2. Political opponents of gay marriage have used narratives, emotions, memes, etc. The idea that they haven't is pretty silly, if you remember any of the last 50 years (Adam and Steve? Man-dog? An attack on marriage? Radical homosexual agenda?) One of the main functions of the Natural Law arguments that Hitchen's thinks have failed, recall, was to rationalize and legitimize the once politically successful but now politically unsuccessful argument from disgust.
3. Hitchens underrates the strongest argument for gay rights, and same-sex marriage specifically, which hasn't been an emotional trick or trope or rhetorical move, but gay people themselves. The main problem with arguments against gay marriage has been that, whether rational or emotional, they're significantly less persuasive to people who know and care about gay people. A story that "repositions victim and victimizer and changes the hero" seems unlikely to touch that. 

It's possible this is the wrong way to think about this primer, though. Maybe it shouldn't be thought of as a plan for new tactics in ongoing political battles, but as a tool to reassure conservatives that even though they feel like they're on the wrong side of history, they're actually obviously right. The primer seems like it will likely work, to the extent it does, to safeguard the message against serious self-questioning. It will re-direct internal criticism to the more incidental matter of messaging.

The fundamental claim being made is that Americans haven't rejected what these people are saying, but just how they're saying it. That seems pretty clearly wrong, but also a comforting thing to tell yourself when you're faced with round after round of rejection.

Read More

Howard Phillips, 1941-2013

Howard Phillips, a leader of the religious right who spent more than 30 years pushing conservatives to be more true to their anti-government principals, has died at the age of 72.

He worked for Richard Nixon in the 1970s, dismantling welfare programs, but resigned when Nixon failed to stop funding programs he had promised to slash. Phillips was a key player in the founding of the Moral Majority and the politicization of evangelicals in the 1980s, and then founded a religious right party as an alternative to the Republicans in 1991. Phillips ran for president three times on the U.S. Taxpayers' Party ticket, in 1992, 1996, and 2000.

He embraced Christian Reconstructionism and libertarian economics, and was particularly interesting as a radical figure who refused to compromise. At his most politically successful, in 1996, Howard got .19 percent of the vote.

In 2000, during his last presidential run, he devoted some of his campaigning to attacking George W. Bush, a politically conservative evangelical Christian embraced by much of the religious right. Phillips, however, called Bush "a pretty new face to mask the ugly old policies" of "America's permanent power structure."

On the stump that year, Phillips said,

In this century, three Presidents in particular, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson have successfully launched fundamental assaults on America's heritage of Constitutional liberty. None of their successors altered the course on which these Presidents directed us.

Neither Harding, Coolidge nor Hoover undid the damage done during the Wilson presidency. Eisenhower consolidated and extended the systems put in place under FDR's New Deal and carried forward the institutional policies of the Truman presidency.

When Richard Nixon became President, instead of challenging the neo-Marxist revolutionary agenda of LBJ's Great Society, he consolidated it and extended it, while providing increased funding for its activities.

Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all operated in the context of LBJ's Gramsci-esque political reality which was, in essence, a Federally funded war on the Constitution, on the culture, on the military, on traditional educational policy, and on the family.

Instead of e pluribus unum, America has become 'a house divided,' with its citizens defined on the basis of gender, ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation.

A runaway Supreme Court has, without serious challenge, asserted legislative claims never intended or granted by the Framers. Religious liberty has been assaulted, respect for the sanctity of human life has been abandoned, local control of crime has been undermined, and private property rights have been jeopardized. 

[....] 

But the real reason for the pro-Bush dynamic of the Year 2000 election is the overriding disgust with Bill Clinton and the desire to end the Clinton era.

Moreover, America's permanent power structure needs a pretty new face to mask ugly old policies.

That is the reason 'Dubya' is the clear favorite.

Once disgust with Clinton is, a few years hence, superseded by a new political reality, with Dubya having been in office for one, two, or three years, sensible conservatives and Christians will discern that, in GWB, they have installed Clintonism without Clinton.

Phillips got more than 98,000 votes cast for him that year, about .09 percent of the total vote. He finished in sixth place, behind the Green Party, Reform Party and Libertarian Party candidates. Despite his electoral failures, though Phillips was a real force for radicalization on the Christian right.

Read More

Religious arguments in the legal fights over same-sex marriage

Photo by Jamison Weiser (CC)

A man dressed up in Catholic liturgical regalia protests religious teachings against same-sex

marriage in San Francisco, Monday.

One of the biggest, most contentious issues in the ongoing American culture wars goes to the Supreme Court this week, with oral arguments today and tomorrow in two cases about the constitutionality of legally defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

At Religion and Politics, law professor Calvin Massey offers a preview of the cases:

Hollingsworth v. Perry confronts whether California’s 2008 constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution, specifically its guarantee of equal protection to all persons under the law. Prop 8 drew a lot of attention during the 2008 election; it was bolstered by a host of religious organizations, notably the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and megachurch pastor Rick Warren. It passed by a 52 to 48 percent margin, receiving more than 7 million “yes” votes. Then two same-sex couples filed suit in federal court to invalidate Prop 8. The trial court voided the amendment and a federal appeals court affirmed that decision on equal protection grounds.

In United States v. Windsor, the plaintiff, Edith Windsor, is an 83-year-old widow who is challenging section 3 of DOMA, also on equal protection grounds. When her spouse Thea Spyer died in 2009, Windsor was not allowed the marital deduction for estate taxes, though she and Spyer legally married in 2007. DOMA, enacted in 1996 under the Clinton administration, makes federal marital benefits available only to married couples of the opposite sex. Because of this, Windsor paid some $350,000 in estate taxes before she sought a refund in federal court. The trial court agreed with her, and the federal appeals court affirmed the ruling; the federal government has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Massey notes that because of the way culture-war conflicts have played out over the last 40 years, some proponents of same-sex marriage are actually hoping for a small victory, rather than a big, dramatic win. If the court strikes down all same-sex marriage bans, that could detrimental to the cause, resulting in lots of backlash and generations of cultural entrenchment, where conservatives use the court's ruling as a rallying cry. It's a fear of a Pyrrhic victory. Massey calls this the "specter of Roe v. Wade":

Roe overturned all state laws prohibiting abortion, and even those that severely regulated but did not outlaw abortions. The result, as Justice Ginsburg noted in her Madison Lecture at NYU Law School, delivered 20 years ago this month, was that the trend in the states toward progressive legalization of abortion was truncated by a sweeping judicial fiat. Had the Court confined itself to striking down the Texas law at issue in Roe, without addressing the validity of other states’ laws, there would have been room for further evolution of abortion laws in the states. Instead, Roe closed the door of legislative change and brought about a 40-year battle of high emotions, even violence, and stubborn opposition to Roe and its progeny. 

When people feel that they have lost in an open and democratic debate, they may not like it but will usually accept the popular verdict. But when people feel that their voice has been ignored by a process in which they have no input, they are apt to resist the result as an illegitimate usurpation of democratic institutions

National Public Radio has a piece on a Pentecostal church in El Paso where many people would likely respond to a clear legal victory for same-sex marriage in just this way. That church has -- like a number of conservative Christian groups -- been politically active on what NPR dramatically calls "one of the battlegrounds in the gathering war over gay marriage." It's not a great news story. There are more than a few problematic framing issues typical of accounts of "culture war." But the story does give space to the views of some of those religious people in America who are deeply opposed to same-sex marriage, and worried about what the court might decide in June. One of the main fears is that a sweeping ruling will, by judicial fiat, etc., basically rule religiously informed arguments against same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

This is one of the many legal arguments that religious groups are officially making in these two cases, which can be found in the nearly 100 amici filed with the Supreme Court, where various groups not directly involved in the dispute offer their input in legal briefs.

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, there are at least two dozen such briefs from religious organizations. A survey of some of the arguments those organizations are making in favor of the right of the State of California to legally define "marriage" as only involving opposite-sex couples shows the variety of religious arguments that are being made. Some are familiar, some innovative.

A sampling:

• The National Association of Evangelicals, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Missouri-Synod Lutherans jointly argue the lower court's ruling that overturned the voter-approved definition of marriage was "a misguided incursion into this democratic debate," mis-applying legal precedent, and declaring "in the name of the Constitution that religious understandings are irrational and illegitimate, even when coupled with nonreligious judgements."
• The Conference of Catholic Bishops argues that legally defining marriage as being between a man and a women is "rationally related to legitimate state interests," because of opposite-sex couples potential to procreate and because children are better off when raised with a father and a mother. The bishops write "as a matter of simple biology, the union of one man and one woman is the only union capable of creating new life [and] the People of California could reasonably conclude that a home with a mother and a father is the optimal environment for raising children." They further make the case if religious and moral considerations are involved in enacting such a ban, that doesn't make it constitutionally invalid, since "Many, if not most, of the significant social and political movements in our Nation’s history were based on precisely such considerations. Moreover, the argument to redefine marriage to include the union of persons of the same sex is similarly based on a combination of religious and moral considerations (albeit ones that are, in our view, flawed)."
• The Coalition of African American Pastors USA and others argue that the historic ruling striking down state bans on inter-racial marriage cannot be used to strike down bans on same-sex marriage. They write "the anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia were at war with the core purposes of marriage -- especially the fostering of responsible procreation and child rearing by biological parents -- because those Virginia statutes prevented children from being raised in the optimal setting: a family headed by married biological parents" (emphases original). According to this group, the present movement to legalize same-sex marriage is analogous to historic efforts to ban inter-racial marriage, since both seek to radically redefine marriage for the sake of "extraneous" social policies. 
• The Foundation for Moral Law makes the argument that "the Framers of the Constitution would be shocked to see their document twisted to protect something they regarded as abhorrent" and that "marriage is not simply an individual right, but rather it is a divinely-established institution that is as old as if not older than civil government."
• Catholics for the Common Good (a lay-led organization from California) argues that legally defining marriage as necessarily involving opposite-sex couples is not discriminatory, but based on reasonable judgements about the biological differences between men and women. The claim is made that "there is a vast body of credible, scientific evidence that supports the California voters’ choice to differentiate the nomenclature to be assigned to male-female pairs (marriage) and single-sex pairs (domestic partnership)." They argue it must be permissible for states "to construct public policies that assume that there is a real difference between men and women; between mothers and fathers; between boys and girls; and between male-female sexual relationships, and those of same-sex couples."
• Family Research Council -- once the political arm of Focus on the Family, though now independent -- offers what they call "alternative grounds" on which same-sex marriage can be rightly, legally banned. One argument the group makes is that "the fundamental right to marry that has been recognized by this Court is limited, by the nature of marriage itself, to opposite-sex couples." Another argument offered is that the state's definition of marriage did not discriminate against anyone, since all men and women, even homosexual men and women, have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. 
• Patrick Henry College makes the argument that legal definitions of marriage are necessarily about morality, and not allowing the people of a state to ban same-sex marriage means coercing them to morally sanction same-sex marriage. The college writes: "The definition of marriage [...] is a quintessentially moral determination, for it encompasses the question of what marriage ought to be. Since this case (like any case dealing with polygamy or incest) is about the meaning of marriage, rather than access to it on equal terms, each side is asking the state for moral sanction through the designation, 'marriage.'"

There are also a number of religious organizations that have filed amici in favor of striking down California's ban on same sex marriage. One has the backing of 18 different groups, most of which are mainline Protestant or Jewish. These include the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, several Lutheran groups, several Presbyterian groups, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and a Quaker group, as well as the Union of Reform Judaism, the Rabbinical Assembly, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, and others. In their brief, these groups emphasize the breadth and diversity of support for same-sex marriage among religious groups, and make an argument from American religious pluralism. They claim that "permitting same-sex couples to marry will not impinge on religious beliefs, practices, or operations, but rather will prevent one set of religious beliefs from being imposed through civil law." Another such brief has been filed by a number of California-based religious organizations who say they oppose legally defining marriage as between a man and a woman because that would be "governmental discrimination turning on whether a committed couple's union accords with liturgical doctrines."

There is a slightly smaller number of legal briefs from religious groups filed in the second case, United States v. Windsor. Some of the groups involved are the same, though there are also others. In these briefs, those arguing for a federal law -- the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- defining marriage as being between a man and a woman turn their attention to questions of discrimination, and whether or not such a law discriminates against homosexuals. There are also assorted other arguments that are made. A survey of some of the religious organizations' arguments:

• The National Association of Evangelicals, et al., make a technical argument about how "suspect classes" should be determined in questions of violation of Equal Protection, and argue, more generally, that religious groups "have just as much right as anyone else to have our views considered by democratic decision makers. But that cannot properly occur if the great marriage debate is removed from our democratic institutions and decided by the judiciary under a heightened standard of review."
• The Family Research Counsel writes that DOMA "on its face, does not discriminate between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but between opposite-sex married couples and same-sex married couple," and repeats many of the arguments made in Hollingsworth v. Perry.
• The Catholic bishops argue DOMA's definition of marriage is not a problem because it does not deny anyone a "fundamental right," since there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage. According to the bishops, "civil recognition of same-sex relationships is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition—quite the opposite is true. Nor can the treatment of such relationships as marriages be said to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed."
• The Manhattan Declaration, Inc. -- the movement with a manifesto with more than 500,000 signatures of Catholic, evangelical and Orthodox Christians who believe "the male-female nature of marriage to be an essential Christian teaching" -- argues for the universality of the DOMA definition of marriage, and that it has nothing to do with animus towards homosexuals. A religious liberty argument is also made. The group writes:  "Marriage is a foundational institution universally known and accepted, without regard to the accidents of time and place, as a male-female coupling" and "redefining marriage imperils religious liberty and oftentimes requires that freedom of conscience be sacrificed to the newly regnant orthodoxy." Striking down the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman would, according to Manhattan Declaration, "constitutionalize" same-sex marriage.
• Robert P. George, who helped found the Manhattan Declaration, Inc., and has been at the forefront of natural law arguments against same-sex marriage, argues that the question for the court to decide is not the definition of marriage, but only "whether citizens and legislators may embody in law the belief in marriage as a conjugal union, as they have historically done." He further argues that it is rational and practical for those citizens and legislators to define marriage as necessarily involving opposite-sex couples (implying it is not just a religious judgement and therefore should be allowed).
• The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty argues similarly, making the case that striking the opposite-sex marriage provision from DOMA would mean that "service members who adhere to traditional religious beliefs on marriage and family will likely be penalized and marginalized, and the chaplaincy’s efforts to protect religious liberty will face severe conflicts."
• Concerned Women for America -- the group Beverly LeHaye founded -- writes that homosexuals should not be a class protected against discrimination because, as a group, they're politically powerful, having "repeatedly demonstrated their ability to influence public policy through democratic means. And their influence is only increasing. Their causes are supported by the mainstream media, popular culture, big labor, and big business." The group also makes the argument that in this case, one of the key questions at stake is who defines marriage, in addition to how marriage is defined. The group argues that the decision should be made democratically, i.e., not by the courts.

There only seem to be two amici from religious groups opposing DOMA's definition of marriage in United States v. Windsor. As in Hollingsworth v. Perry, there's one brief with a large number of socially left-leaning religious groups signed onto it. These groups have chosen a strategy that's quite different than the right-leaning groups 21-guns approach. In that brief, filed by the Episcopal church of the 10 states and the District of Columbia where same-sex marriage has been legalized, six Reform and Conservative Jewish groups, the Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ, and several Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist groups, the arguments made in the amicus in the other case are substantially repeated. They repeat the point that there is no one religious position on same-sex marriage and that a particular religious doctrine about marriage should not be given the backing of federal law. 

What import these various arguments will have in the cases before the Supreme Court remains to be seen. What is notable about these arguments from religious groups is how secular they are. They're secular in the sense that they're grounded in this-worldly justifications, arguments which are, in principle, accessible to all. These are arguments about social good, arguments that could mostly be proven or proven false with data. The cases being made mostly do not involve arguments from revelation, or religious authority, or any claims that necessarily entail any theistic ontology.

Steve Bruce has argued the rise of the religious right as a political force is evidence for secularization even in America for exactly this reason. He writes:

Critics of the secularization paradigm sometimes point to the Christian Right as evidence that social differentiation has not marginalized religion. I draw the opposite conclusion from the same data .... Christian Right organizations now present their causes in secular language .... They cannot assert that God dislikes divorce [e.g.]. They have to argue that divorce is socially dysfunctional. 

This is important, because the culture war that's fought around such issues as these Supreme Court cases is often understood -- especially by those involved -- as a pitched battle between secular and religious forces. Religious people and organizations that are politically active on the right regularly express the fear that secularists are attempting to effectively disenfranchise them, push them out of the public sphere. That's certainly the fear expressed by the pastor of the Pentecostal church in El Paso, profiled by NPR. It's an issue raised by many of the religious groups that have filed amici in these legal cases. Court rulings tend to aggravate that feeling of disenfranchisement, which is why some advocates of same-sex marriage (such as Andrew Sullivan) prefer the issue not be settle by the courts. And why some observers think conservatives stand to gain by losing these cases in court.

But, here, the religious forces are secular forces.

The main "religious" arguments being made for the legal definition of marriage as only being between opposite-sex couples is not religious, in any meaningful way. The counter argument being made, likewise, is not that these arguments should be disallowed because they are religious. Ted Olson, for example, the lawyer advocating for homosexuals' right to get married in the Hollingsworth v. Perry case, responds to the religious right's secular arguments with secular counter-arguments, saying that each fails only because it fails to prove what it sets out to prove, which is that it is in the state's interest to bar homosexuals from the legal benefits and protections of the institution of civil marriage.

As NPR reports:

Olson replies that none of the offered justifications for Proposition 8 hold water -- not family, not kids, not the institution of marriage. No one, he says, has come up with any reason why same-sex marriage 'damages heterosexual marriages in any way.' 

Ultimately, he says, it is no justification to say the country has been doing something for hundreds of years, if it flies in the face of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.

There are many like the Reformed theologian Peter Leithart, who worry that Christian arguments against same-sex marriage are barred from the public debate, and that even if they were allowed, they'd be underwhelming. Religiously informed arguments would be ineffectual and unpersuasive. "It will take," he recently wrote, "nothing short of a cultural revolution for biblical arguments to be heard, much less to become persuasive." This is because, for Leithart, it seems that "the only arguments we have are theological ones, and only people whose imaginations are formed by Scripture will find them cogent."

In these two Supreme Court cases, though, it is apparent that theological arguments aren't the only ones. Whether or not the non-theological arguments are any more cogent and persuasive to the general public is another question.

It's that question that has bubbled up in an intra-religious conservative dispute about the usefulness of the idea of natural law. The ideas of natural law underly many of the arguments religious groups are making in the legal briefs in these two cases: that there is a natural and right order that can be determined by rational thought and ought to be adhered to for the sake of human flourishing.

As Hugo Grotius pointed out, a key aspect of natural law is that it depends on reason alone, and holds "etsi Deus non daretur," even if God is not a given. Which is to say, it is secular.

The natural law arguments against same-sex marriage that are being made and have been made are secular, and thus at least theoretically reasonable and effectual in public debates in a pluralistic society. This is why the theory of natural law was embraced so wholeheartedly by conservative Christian groups seeking to have a political impact on American culture. As Brad Littlejohn explains:

With the ascendancy of the Moral Majority, conservative Christians found themselves catapulted into the public square, and the more sophisticated were conscious that a raw and undiluted biblicism was not going to get them very far in public debates. Finding themselves shoulder-to-shoulder with Catholic co-belligerents in the culture wars, evangelicals glanced over at the popish playbook and thought natural law looked like a pretty promising notion. Accordingly, they took up the idea with gusto.  

But now, scarcely a decade into this revolution [....] finding that natural law arguments are gaining them no traction in the current debate, evangelicals, and indeed many within the whole cobbled-together conservative coalition, were already wavering and considering withdrawal.

The wavering can be explained by the fact that natural law theory was picked up, by and large, because of the promise it would be a powerful tool. Conservative religious people involved in political activism may believe in natural law, but there's a strong instrumentality to that belief. Where strictly religious and theological arguments (built on biblicist or presuppositional epistemologies) had failed, those grounded this way, in reason -- commonly accessible, public reason -- would succeed. That was the promise. And yet they haven't, or at least not enough. The swing in public opinion on the topic of same-sex marriage has been shocking. Arguments about natural order have had little strength, where the testimonies about the public good of gay marriage have been both affective and effective.

The images of long-committed same-sex couples getting married have seemed to growing portions of the public to speak much more clearly about the common good, and much more persuasively about the kind of society that American citizens want to live in.

The natural law arguments against same-sex marriage have been so unpersuasive, it seems that the only way to continue to hold them is by way of giving up on the debate. To quote Littlejohn again, "We seem to be back in a situation where we must simply give up on the rest of 'irrational' society and retreat to our strongholds, or else aggressively assert the superiority of our own reasoning and call upon our opponents to subject their reasons to the yoke of Christ."

These are the religious arguments that have gone to the Supreme Court, though. Perhaps in that context things will be different. Or, perhaps the sun is setting on these particular religio-political arguments.

Read More

American evangelicals ♥ Pope Benedict XVI

One of the really fascinating stories of American evangelicalism in the 20th century is how evangelical attitudes towards Catholicism completely changed. In 1926, one of America's leading fundamentalist pastors, J. Frank Norris, attacked Catholicism and warned American evangelicals not to trust them, with sermons and articles with titles like "The Conspiracy of Rum and Romanism to Rule this Government."

Such attitudes persisted even into the 1960s. But things have changed since then. As Religion News Service notes, American evangelical leaders have responded to Pope Benedict XVI's announcement of his resignation by praising the man, and saying how much they will miss him.

Daniel Burke writes:

Just a generation or two ago, such lavish praise might have been unthinkable. During the early 1960s, evangelist Billy Graham — sometimes dubbed the Protestant pope — took heat for inviting Catholics to join his revivals. But after the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), denominational barriers fell and ecumenism prospered.  

Meanwhile, evangelicals developed an appreciation for Catholic culture, and Catholics found ready evangelical allies in the battles against secularism, abortion and gay rights.  

'One of the challenges of evangelical Protestantism as it became a political force was to find a vocabulary to talk about the role of Christian faith in a diverse, pluralistic society like the United States,' said R.R. Reno, executive editor of First Things, an interreligious journal. 'By and large, they turned to Catholicism.'

The other major factor in this cultural shift -- besides Roe v. Wade, which at first was considered just a Catholic issue that evangelicals shouldn't particularly care about -- was the Cold War, and the Catholic Church's opposition to communism.

The American religious historian Barry Hankins has written about the change in the "marketplace of ideas" that brought evangelicals and Catholics together.

Of course, there are still those out there like William Tapley, who talks about the papacy in terms of the antichrist and assorted end times prophecies. That's just an extreme fringe, though. The days of Norris-style warnings about Catholicism has passed.

Read More

Francis Schaeffer and the death of Baby Doe

Francis Schaeffer's 1982 message to the Presbyterians at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., was pretty simple: the philosophy of modern society is humanism, and humanism means death.

The speech was part of Schaeffer's book tour for A Christian Manifesto, which had been published the year before. That book and tour, along with 1976's book and film series How Shall We Then Live? and 1979's book and film Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, all made a sustained argument about the need for Christian activism. The pro-life movement, as such, can be traced to these arguments; the religious right as a "bloc" and a single, mobilized, political entity, was formed in part by these efforts. Schaeffer made the historical and philosophical case that undergirded the emerging movement.

The argument was about attitudes towards life and death.

Attitudes exemplified by the issue of infanticide.

The case Schaeffer made to the Presbyterians hinged on claims about infanticide, its prevalence and its popular acceptability. His philosophical critique of modern America and his proscriptive solution of Christian action both depended on the accuracy of his cultural analysis. Both were dependent on the question of whether or not Schaeffer was right about the way the world was at that moment. For that reason alone, it's worth inquiring into the question of infants killed by doctors in 1982.

The answer to the question of whether or not Schaeffer was right about infanticide in 1982 will go some ways towards answering the questions of whether or not he was right about the modern world, and right or not about humanism.

Schaeffer's abstract, philosophical critique was a critique of humanism. This is constant throughout his work, and was essential to the point he was making in February 1982.

Schaeffer told the people at Coral Ridge:

What we are facing is Humanism: Man, the measure of all things -- viewing final reality being only material or energy shaped by chance -- therefore, human life having no intrinsic value -- therefore, the keeping of any individual life or any groups of human life, being purely an arbitrary choice by society at the given moment.

This is not an obvious argument. Humanism, as articulated in the two Humanist Manifestoes, explicitly and adamantly affirms the value of human life. The first Humanist Manifesto, written in 1933, concludes with the claim that humanism will "affirm life rather than deny it." The second Humanist Manifesto, written in '73, states that "the preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value." Schaeffer is claiming that the humanists are wrong about what humanists believe. Or, more precisely, that they misunderstand the logical consequences of consistently holding to their humanist epistemology and ontology. They don't see the contradiction between denying God and excluding revelation and the supernatural from conversations about public policies, on the one hand, and upholding the value of human life on the other. For Schaeffer, the humanists may say that human life has value but they can't say it is intrinsically valuable, and that makes all the difference.

This is not just an abstract claim, though. Schaeffer was making an argument about what was actually happening in American at that moment. He claimed that this social development was visible: Humanism has taken over and has wrought death.

As evidence of this, he offered the current practice of doctors and nurses committing infanticide. Those who looked, he said, would see how humanism, in practice, meant the devaluation of human life:

Believe me, it's everywhere. It isn't just abortion. It's infanticide. It's allowing the babies to starve to death after they are born. If they do not come up to some doctor's concept of a quality of life worth living. I'll just say in passing -- and never forget it -- it takes about 15 days, often, for these babies to starve to death....

So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed -- not all doctors. I'm sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn't take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child -- the child with Down's Syndrome -- to starve to death if it's born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views. The view now is, "Is this life worth saving?"

This is not a philosophical claim. It's a claim, rather, about what was actually happening in 1982, and should be a matter of record, a claim that could be verified. Where arguments about what humanists "really" believe are not likely to go anywhere, it should be a simple enough matter to establish whether or not Schaeffer was right about what was happening in American hospitals in 1982. Note that he was not here making a slippery slope argument, saying that the legalization of abortion will at some future date end up meaning that infanticide is an accepted practice. That's common in pro-life rhetoric, and Schaeffer made that argument too, but that's not what Schaeffer was saying here. He was making the claim that there was a general practice in the medical profession -- i.e., an implementation of humanism -- such that certain sorts of infants were being starved to death.

Is this true?

Were newborns being regularly killed in American hospitals -- easily, wantonly, and so on?

No.

There's one particularly famous case from that same year that would seem, on one level, to confirm what Schaeffer argued. An infant born with Down's syndrome was allowed to starve to death in a hospital in Bloomington, Indiana, in 1982, two months after Schaeffer's Florida speech. Some of the basic facts might seem to confirm his claims, but the details of that case show that Schaeffer was wrong -- importantly -- about the majority attitudes towards life and death in American hospitals. The full story of the Baby Doe case, as it's called, seriously undermine Schaeffer's argument.

Here's what happened: a child was born on Good Friday, April 1982. He was born with Down's syndrome and a disorder of the digestive system, esophageal atresia. This meant he could not eat.

There were three doctors in the case. Two recommended transporting the infant immediately to another hospital where emergency surgery could be preformed. The surgery had a 90 percent chance of success. The third -- the doctor who actually delivered the child -- said that there was another option that the parents had to consider.

They could let their child die.

The third doctor, Walter Owens, said the surgery would be painful, and possibly only the first of many, and the child would still have Down's. He suspected there were also other issues, such as brain damage. He said the child would be a "mere blob." They had a choice and they needed to know they had a choice that they had to make.

The family, which had had experiences with children with Down's, decided to let their child die. Owens told them they were being courageous, and said, "Here's how I look at it. If you let the baby die, you're going to grieve a little while. But if you go ahead with this surgery, you're going to grieve for the rest of your lives."

To this point, the story seems to align exactly with what Schaeffer predicted. Owens was a Unitarian-Universalist, incidentally, which would also fit Schaeffer's cultural analysis of the betrayal of Reformed Christian worldview and its consequences.

The story goes on, however. One of the doctors recommending the emergency surgery -- who happened to be named Schaffer -- fought for the infant's life. He appealed to the hospital authorities, and they brought in a judge on Saturday night to make a decision about this case. According to Jeff Lyons, who wrote the history of the Baby Doe case (1, 2, 3, 4), the judge was at home coloring Easter eggs with his children when the call came, and there was an emergency hearing at the hospital.

Lyons writes:

At issue was nothing less than whether parents ever have the right to refuse live-saving treatment for their children and whether a life of handicap is so abysmal as to warrant its termination at birth. 

Only rarely in American jurisprudence had such questions been raised. On the few occasions on which they had, the courts had almost invariably ruled against the parents and in favor of life. But in those instances the doctors had always been lined up against the parents. 

In Bloomington, however, it was a different matter. There existed a strong--one might say vehement--difference of clinical opinion as to what the best course of treatment was.

After hearing the evidence and the testimony of the conflicting doctors, as well as the arguments of the hospital's lawyers and a cleric, the judge took 30 minutes to deliberate. Then he ruled that it was not the court's place to make this decision: when a family is presented with two options by medical professionals, it is their right to make the choice about which course of action to take concerning a newborn infant. The family in this case had made their decision, and the child would die.

That wasn't the end of it, though.

The nurses revolted. A sign was taped to Baby Doe's crib saying "Do Not Feed." Possibly this was because of the problem with the infant's esophagus, but it was taken as a symbol of the parent's decision to starve their child. The head nurse saw the sign and responded: "Over my dead body." En masse, the nurses threatened to strike.

Francis Schaeffer, from a certain perspective, seems prescient here. At Coral Ridge, two months before, he had said that nurses would be asked to participate in the death of infants. He predicted there would be signs on cribs that said "Do Not Feed," and that nurses would be fired if they refused to follow those orders. The nurses in Bloomington did refuse, though, and they weren't fired. The hospital took their side. Instead of firing the nurses, the child was moved out of the nursery, taken to another floor, and the family was required to hire private nurses.

There was also immediate, fierce criticism of the judge, and so the decision was referred to the state's Child Protection Committee, with a guardian appointed to represent the interests of the child in that hearing. After 45 minutes of deliberation, Lyons reports, the committee returned with the same decision, affirming the rights of the parent's to make this medical decision.

Neither the court nor the committee, it's worth noting, never made any sort of decision about the value of the infant's life, or about the ways in which, perhaps, quality of life could be measured against life itself. Rather, they considered and made a ruling about who has the right to the final decision about how to respond to an infant's serious medical condition when doctors disagree. They decided, very conservatively, that the state does not have the power, nor does the hospital. The rights are the parents', in consultation with their physicians.

There was another legal challenge the next day, when the county prosecutor tried to have the child declared neglected, giving the state the authority to overrule the parent's decision. That failed, and there were then a series of other efforts: a local attorney acting on behalf of the county prosecutor applied for a temporary restraining order agains the parents; a lawyer for the National Right to Life Association filed a petition on behalf of a couple that wanted to adopt Baby Doe; an appeal was made to the Indiana Supreme Court; plans were made to appeal to the Supreme Court.

All of these failed. Mostly for legal and technical reasons.

The parents, meanwhile, named the child Walter after Owens, the doctor who'd recommended they let him die. They had the infant baptized into the Catholic Church by their parish priest. They asked their nurses when the ordeal would be over.

Others continued to fight for the infant's life, nevertheless. Protestors gathered outside the hospital with signs. The doctor who strongly recommended the emergency surgery, Schaffer, tried to break into Baby Doe's room to administer an IV, to feed the dying child. Lyon's calls it "one of the most bizarre episodes in the history of American medicine, an episode that saw one doctor guard a dying baby from another doctor who was threatening to try and save its life." The rescue mission only stopped because it was too late. The doctor said he knew that feeding the dying infant intravenously could cost him his medical license or even result in criminal charges of kidnapping. But he didn't care. It was too late, though.

At six days old, denied medical treatment and denied food, Baby Doe died.

There don't seem to be any reliable figures to indicate how many similar cases occurred in the United States in 1982. It's just not known if, as Schaeffer said, such practices were "everywhere." The fact that this case received such attention, though, and evoked such a strong response, suggests that letting Down's children or otherwise handicapped children die was not common or commonly accepted. A similar case in 1983 received similar attention, and similarly garnered outrage from the public, the medical community and legal community, indicating that while there were some doctors doing this sort of thing, they faced overwhelming resistance.

Schaeffer's description of the culture, where "the medical profession has largely changed," is simply factually wrong.

But what should be made of this? It seems significant that he was wrong. Schaeffer's cultural analysis and his philosophical analysis in this 1982 speech depended very much on the truth of the claim that infanticide was happening, and happening without any resistance. The entire argument that he made in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., can be summed up with these two arguments that both rest on this purported fact of infanticide: modern society is humanist, humanism results in the devaluation of life, and thus the modern world is now a place where infants with Down's are being nonchalantly killed.

But they weren't, though. Not nonchalantly.

According to reports, even in such liberal quarters as the Washington Post, Baby Doe's death was considered a tragedy. The American Academy of Pediatrics expressed "open concern that Baby Does' obstetric physician had made a mistake, that poor advice was given to the family and that such an event should be avoided." An article published in the Western Journal of Medicine said the doctor made a "serious judgement error," because of his own prejudice and bias. The next year, in response to the public outcry, every hospital that received federal funding was required to prominently post signs announcing "discriminatory failure to feed and care for handicapped infants ... is prohibited by federal law." Several laws were passed, following the case. Reflecting on the case 20 years later, the judge who'd been called to the Bloomington hospital on Easter eve noted that "if this situation had happened in present-day courts, there would be no doubt all action would have been taken to save the baby's life because of new state and federal laws that prohibit such acts."

If Walter Owens received any support in this case, for his opinion that the child should be allowed to die, it wasn't very vocal. Even those who opposed the Baby Doe regulations went out of their way to make it clear that they thought the doctor made a horrible decision.

All of this points to the fact that Schaeffer was wrong. The reaction to the Baby Doe case shows that the America of 1982 was not the kind of place that Francis Schaeffer thought it was. While there may have been a few who, in specific cases, asked the question, "Is this life worth saving?," that was clearly not happening "on every side." When you look at what actually was the case, what you find is the opposite of what Schaeffer said would be found. People overwhelmingly wanted to keep this infant alive, and valued his life enough to try to get the government to take away the parents' legal rights.

Schaeffer's message, to Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and in those tours in 1976, '79 and '82, was about the dangers of humanism, and how Christians should wake up because humanism had taken over their world, reshaped their country, and put the lives of America's most vulnerable in jeopardy. In this specific instance, he made very concrete claims about how that was happening, but it's clear he was wrong.

Schaeffer's cultural analysis was mistaken.

The only possible conclusions, it seems, is that either he was wrong about humanism having taken over America, or, alternatively, it's just not the case that humanism devalues human life in the way Schaeffer said it did.

Read More

Michele Bachmann's post-eleciton disasters

Michele Bachmann's ill-fated campaign for the GOP presidential nomination ended over a year ago, after a brutal loss in the Iowa Caucuses. Bachmann, who is now returning to Congress for her another term, had serious religious right bona fides, having been politicized by Francis Schaeffer in 1977, but couldn't rally the Republican faithful and couldn't manage the necessary transformation into a plausible national candidate.

Her campaign went from disaster to disaster.

Her campaign is still going from disaster to disaster, long after it's over.

A year after the campaign, Peter Waldron, the Bachmann staffer in charge of evangelical outreach is now saying the congresswoman is refusing to pay staffers for work they did. It's a relatively small amount of money. Bachmann ended her presidential campaign with more than $2 million in her war chest and reportedly raised more money in her congressional campaign than any other candidate, but is, according to the disgruntled ex-staffer, refusing to pay out on less than $5,000 of outstanding bills. Which seems like strange behavior.

Or, as Bachmann's one-time head of Christian outreach put it: "It is sobering to think that a Christian member of Congress would betray her testimony to the Lord and the public by withholding earned wages from deserving staff."

The official response has been accusations that Waldron is lying. Which he may be, though that only calls into question the Bachmann campaigns competency in another way. This man, after all, has a historythat would have given another political team pause before making him a key part of its strategy.

There's been some speculation that this conflict stems from a separate post-campaign disaster, the ongoing investigation into the alleged theft of a list of homeschooler's e-mails. According to the Star Tribune, the Bachmann campaign eventually paid the homeschool group $2,000 for using or misusing the list, but the campaign is also being sued by the individual they got the list from and the criminal investigation into how that happened is still open.

Whether that's the source of the conflict or not, the public fight between Waldron and the Bachmann loyalists has now escalated, with the ex-staffer now making colorful accusations about unusual things going on in the campaign and the extreme extent to which Bachmann let her staff control her. Things were so bad, according to Waldron, that avid supporters didn't recognize the Bachmann they thought they knew, and "More than one staffer was grateful to God that she didn't win the nomination."

This isn't reliable information, of course, but there is a clear pattern of very bad judgment from this Republican leader of the religious right. Whether one believes the ex-staffer or thinks he's crazy or both, the conclusion would be the same: Bachmann lacks the ability to surround herself with reasonable, reliable people. A good number of her history of crises can be attributed directly to this fact, and she'll likely continue, despite her success at fundraising and winning the vote of her Minnesota district, careening from disaster to disaster.

Her fiercest supporters and critics hold that this is because of her strong ideological positions. It seems possible, though, that it's just incompetance.

Read More