We can agree with Joseph Pull, Colfax, N.D., (letter, Nov. 27) that the Religious Right is made up of some sincere, caring people; that they want to improve education in the public schools, reduce crime, help the poor, promote equal justice for all and improve the comforts of our families.
Those of us who do not consider ourselves "religious" work for all these objectives and more -- religious people do not have an exclusive corner on this market.
However, I must point out that the cognomen of "Religious Right" is unmistakably that of a political-religious faction -- ultra-conservative and Christian, a noisy pressure group during Constitutional times of elections and proposed legislation.
Its aim is to promote its own narrow agendas to the level of endangering the First Amendment and eroding the constitutional concept of separation of church and state.
Pull's gleaning of the media for descriptions of this group as "hypocritical, malicious and dangerous" appear to come from sources similar to which I subscribe, I admit. In defense of it he asks why it is described in such unflattering language. May I cite a couple of examples of the "danger" of radical, right-wing religion-political activity and the bargains made with the Republican Congress.
On June 4 the Religious Freedom Amendment failed to pass by a two-thirds majority it needed, faring worse than it had 27 years earlier. Briefly, the act would have essentially removed church-state separation from the First Amendment by permitting prayer and religious worship in public schools, mandating government tax aid to religious schools and ministries and permitting government to endorse religion in various ways. It would have allowed religious entities access to government grants and aid for religious purposes.
Ever persistant, on the defeat of this amendment, there is word of a gathering campaign, still, to add a school-prayer amendment next year. Another, even more dangerous (Pull's term) is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The legal implications of this act are staggering with regard to municipalities' statutes and historical heritage real estate. The frightening aspect is that so many denominations have signed on -- Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims; even American Humanists and many others. The act, if enacted, would create a dual system of justice --one for the churches and another for private individuals and secular enterprises (civic projects).
Yet another and the latest federal proposal is the Religious Liberty Protection Act. Widely supported by the same groups as above, unanimously passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, this act bodes ill for U.S. international interests. (This is the action that was applauded by Mike McManus, New York Times religion writer in an article on The Forum's Religion page, "America takes a stand on religious persecution").The "law" is fully operative with a $3 million budget and a "council" of 10 members. I leave it to your imagination as to "how deeply embroiled,the United States might become in the internal affairs of other nation states that the council charges with persecuting believers of all religions around the world.
McMangs touched upon China's abuse of Tibet's religion but devoted most of his concern to the plight of Christians in China. He made no suggestions as to action the United States might instigate. I can not understand how anyone who is aware about how the Religious Right is intruding into the business of the state would not consider its actions dangerous. Its intrusions are embarrassing to U.S, national interests and frighteningly compromising.
George Washington's recommendation to his successors, on his leaving office, was they avoid foreign entanglements. Are religious wars a bad prediction for the future of the world?
Marcel Stratton
December 16, 1998