Posts on Center for Moral Clarity

If you thought that Rod Parsley was going to drop out of politics after being humiliated by John McCain, think again.  Earlier this week, Parsley aired a special “election edition” of his program “Breakthrough” with special guests Janet Parshall and Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America.

Parsley opened the broadcast recounting fond memories of how “values voters” saved America during the 2004 election and declared that that was “only the beginning.”  He then turned the discussion over to Wright and Parshall to explain to his viewers why this upcoming election was even more important than the last.

Parshall, after calling Washington, DC “Babylon,” decried the “spiritual warfare” being waged against Sarah Palin, saying that if you “dare to proclaim to a watching world that you follow Christ Jesus, you have opened the gates of Hell” and suggesting that she is actually being attacked by Satan.  When Parsley asked her what the big issues of the election are, Parshall said the question is really “what are the big issues to God?”  As it turns out, the big issues to God just happen to be the same as the big issues to the Religious Right: abortion and gays.  

For her part, Wright urged Parsley’s viewers to elect candidates who will “follow the Biblical principles of how a nation should be governed.”  And, of course, the primary principle was abortion, which Wright compared to the Holocaust, as well as the future of the Supreme Court.

Parsley concluded the program by telling his viewers that it is their votes that will determine if this country will continue to allow the “unconscionable murder of unborn babies, whether it will “stand up for marriage as God intended and his Word declares,”  and whether it will continue to drift toward “silencing the voice of every single Christian.”

In short, it was “values voters” who saved the day in 2004 and it will be “values voters” again in 2008 who will “stop the downward spiral of decadence and immorality in our nation once and for all.”

It was only last year that People For the American Way Foundation helped represent parents in Odessa, Texas against a school board determined to use public schools to promote a particular religious doctrine. “HA! Take that you dang heathens!” the school district’s curriculum director wrote triumphantly after the board voted to use the Religious Right-backed National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools program. The board settled the lawsuit by dropping NCBCPS.

So it’s natural that advocates of church-state separation would be skeptical of the Texas State Board of Education’s decision last week to approve Bible courses statewide, without providing specific educational or constitutional guidelines.

Mark Chancey, associate professor in religious studies at Southern Methodist University, has studied Bible classes already offered in about 25 districts for the Texas Freedom Network.

The study found most of the courses were explicitly devotional with almost exclusively Christian, usually Protestant, perspectives.

It also found that most were taught by teachers with no academic training in biblical, religious or theological studies and who were not familiar with the issues of separation of church and state.

"Some classes promote creation science. Some classes denigrate Judaism. Some classes explicitly encourage students to convert to Christianity or to adopt Christian devotional practices," Chancey said. "This is all well documented, and the board knows it."

On the other hand, the Religious Right is gung-ho about the move. Decrying “[e]nemies of the First Amendment,” Rod Parsley’s Center for Moral Clarity (a supporter of the unconstitutional NCBCPS curriculum) wrote, “We’re glad legislative and educational leaders in Texas have ignored the shrill arguments of the anti-faith fringe, and we hope other states follow suit.”

Jonathan Saenz of the Liberty Legal Institute and the Free Market Foundation similar predicted that “Texas is going to be seen as a leader on this issue,” and also characterized skeptics as fanatical opponents of religious freedom:

"There are enemies of religious freedom all across our state of Texas and across the country, and they'll do anything and stop at nothing to restrict academic freedom and restrict the religious rights of students," Saenz contends. "They simply do not want kids, even on their own choice, to be able to look at the Bible." The State Board of Education is discussing this week how to develop the proposed new courses.

And Gordon Robertson, Pat Robertson’s normally soft-spoken son, compared efforts to prevent the government from proselytizing in the classroom to outlawing Christmas and Thanksgiving:

Given the Religious Right’s steady efforts over the years to push campaigns like NCBCPS, Robertson shouldn’t be surprised that advocates of church-state separation insist on a distinction between teaching about the Bible objectively and promoting a particular brand of faith.

Shortly after Sen. John McCain publicly rejected the endorsements of John Hagee and Rod Parsley, Parsley released his own statement rescinding his endorsement and then sort of disappeared from sight.  Sometime since then, Parsley apparently decided that he had a bit more to get off his chest and so he released a video on his Center for Moral Clarity website in which he reiterated many of the points he made in his initial statement but added some attacks on what he claimed were the "politically vicious and misguided" hit-squads who exposed his radical views, claiming that his views on Islam are “very much in the mainstream” and insisting that he made a “clear distinction between Muslim terrorists and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.” 

Of course, Parsley is on record having told his congregation and massive TV audience that "America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed" and "Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world," as well as writing that so-called "Muslim extremists" are really "mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam."

Video and transcript:

I’d like to take a few moments and respond to the recent media reports regarding my statements in the book “Silent No More” about Islam.  It doesn’t surprise me that, as I continue to engage the culture with a thoroughly Biblical worldview that political hit-squads have begun to describe some of my views in the most ominous and extreme terms. I expected that opponents of that worldview would try to make a connection between myself and the extreme views of other ministers such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This is what we’ve seen play out over the past few days. Certainly, I’m disappointed with those in the media who have misrepresented my views for political gain and who have lied in pursuit of political power.  It’s a sad moment in American politics; one of the many in the recent election cycle.   

My views on Islam, which have come under such scrutiny and misrepresentation, are very much in the mainstream.  Anyone who has read the entire chapter on Islam in my book “Silent No More” understands that what I have said is echoed from the White House to the State Department, from leading universities to the pulpits of our nation. I believe that radical Islam is one of the greatest threats to Western civilization and that conflict has roots in our American history.  I have always, and I will continue, to make a clear distinction between Muslim terrorists and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims who are appalled at the bloody results of suicide bombers and mass murders. Once again, I unapologetically denounce those who spread death in the name of Allah while I continue to believe peace-loving Muslims need the full of all Christians, and Christians must provide understanding, cooperation, and friendship to peace-loving Muslims throughout the world who share our desire for democracy and peace.

I understand that the raw truth of the pulpit cannot survive untempered in the political sphere. Still, I believe that clergy of all faiths should be able to speak into the lives of our political leaders without every doctrine and statement of those religious leaders being transformed into political weapons by the politically vicious and misguided.

Last year we noted the creative reasons the Religious Right came up with to join their economic-right brethren in opposing expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The National Right to Life Committee raised the specter of Medicare “rationing” and “involuntary euthanasia,” while Focus on the Family complained that there was no money in the proposal earmarked for abstinence-only sex ed. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said the problem with the SCHIP expansion was that it provided health coverage to “pregnant mothers” rather than to “unborn children”—a “calculated move,” according to Perkins, “to open the door to federal taxpayer-funded abortions.”

This month, retiring Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colorado) revived his attempt to “classify the unborn child as a patient” under existing SCHIP coverage. The attempt failed, much to the dismay of Rod Parsley’s Center for Moral Clarity.

For the second time in less than a year, the U.S. Senate has rejected an amendment that would allow states to financially help poor pregnant teens and their unborn children. In effect, the vote will help encourage abortion.

The Center for Moral Clarity echoes Perkins in making a nebulous connection between not assigning insurance policies to fetuses and increasing abortion, but while the Family Research Council argued that more federal dollars for children’s health care would “free[] up states” to pay for abortions “with their own state money,” CMC’s point remains mysterious.

By assuaging the “financial concerns” of young women, CMC claims, “[t]hese girls are far more likely to be persuaded or coerced into an abortion.” But given that the Senate did pass expanded coverage for pregnant women and their children, it’s unclear what more “recogniz[ing] unborn children as patients” would do—except advance the legal agenda of abortion opponents.

The infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision—declaring enslaved blacks to be property and presaging the Civil War—is often invoked by opponents of abortion rights, who make the analogy that Roe v. Wade is to fetuses as Dred Scott is to African Americans. Rod Parsley does them one better, arguing that Roe v. Wade is to African Americans just as Dred Scott is to African Americans.

Last week, the Ohio televangelist used his TV show to claim that reproductive health-care providers were trying to “exterminate” African Americans. On Sunday he aired a sermon version of the same argument—and paired it with a get-out-the-vote message for his viewers in Super Tuesday states. Warning that a candidate victorious in today’s primaries will likely become president, and will appoint Supreme Court justices and sign or veto abortion legislation, Parsley’s show told viewers, “Our democracy is too important for Christians to be silent any more.”

Parsley appears to have largely abstained from campaigning around the presidential election so far, but it’s hard to imagine him being apolitical in the coming year. In 2004 and 2006, Parsley and Russell Johnson, another Columbus-area megachurch pastor, teamed up to run a church-based political machine driving the successful anti-gay marriage initiative and the unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign of Ken Blackwell. Calling themselves “Patriot Pastors,” they vowed to wage war against their political opponents—“secular jihadists,” the “forces of darkness,” and the “hordes of hell.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer caught up with Parsley’s comrade Johnson, who headed the Ohio Restoration Project alongside Parsley’s Reformation Ohio. The groups promised to save souls while moving hundreds of thousands of voters to the polls, all while hosting candidate Blackwell at events around the state. Johnson promises more “Patriot Pastor”-style organizing—but without being so blatant about it:

Johnson said he expects that Ohio's Christian leadership will become more active once primary season is over, with varying emphasis on social issues, economics and national security from a conservative point of view. …

Johnson said political activity among preachers might look a little different than it did in the past, when he and the Rev. Parsley and their Patriot Pastors movement drew accusations of violating their churches' tax-exempt status by campaigning for Blackwell. (The pastors denied that they officially backed any particular candidate.)

In any case, leaders don't want to become "an easy target," Johnson says, so they are unlikely to give themselves a moniker. But they will be spreading information through e-mail networks, creating discussion groups and voter guides, and urging people to "get registered, get informed, go vote and take somebody with you."

In their opposition to the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which extends federal protections to victims of violent crime targeted because of sexual orientation, many religious-right activists have taken a rhetorical short-cut, skipping claims of a “slippery slope” and asserting—against the explicit text of the bill—that it would target speech or religion. Ohio televangelist and megachurch pastor Rod Parsley, an increasingly influential political figure on the Right, dedicated his cable show to advancing this idea last week. From Wednesday’s “Rod Parsley” show on TBN (re-run on Friday):

The world, and the Enemy of our soul are making an all-out assault on our religious freedoms, and they’re leading the charge with proposed federal hate crimes legislation. …

This deceptive ploy of liberal, homosexual agenda begins to lose its allure once you pull the mask back and take a closer look. You see, the legislation that’s before our United States senators right now extends to speech and can punish people—hear me now—not for their actions, but for their culturally incorrect thoughts.

This legislation could become law, and you and I could find ourselves forbidden to speak from God’s word right here in America. I could no longer share my heart with you, on critical issues, such as this, through the medium of television, or even from the pulpit of my own church. …

[T]he next person charged with a crime could be me, or your pastor, or your grandmother, or maybe YOU.

Of course, when you “pull the mask back” on the Religious Right’s campaign against the bill, you find something completely different: a law that would only apply to violent crimes, and that specifically states that it does not apply to speech or religious expression.

“Dual-language classes give U.S. an edge,” read the headline of an AP story printed last Tuesday in the right-wing Washington Times, lauding New York City’s 67 schools that offer instruction in English plus immersion in a foreign language to student bodies comprised of about half native English speakers and half children with a background in the other language. The two-way immersion approach has not been without pedagogical controversy, but programs in French, Spanish, Chinese, Creole, and other languages have not produced widespread criticism. That changed with the proposal of a dual-language program for Arabic.

Anti-gay groups cheered when President Bush (apparently) promised to veto hate-crimes protections for gays and lesbians, but the Center for Moral Clarity – the political arm of “Patriot Pastor” Rod Parsley – warns activists not to rest, because “[u]nfortunately,” Bush won’t hold the office “forever.”

Restating the false claim that the hate-crimes bill – which targets violent crimes – would somehow impede religious expression, the Center urges its supporters to continue pressuring Congress, and to oppose presidential candidates who lack a “biblical worldview.”

Unfortunately, George W. won't be president forever. The next person occupying the Oval Office might be willing - maybe even eager - to criminalize our thoughts.

Christians who want to continue speaking the Gospel's truth without fear of arrest and prosecution should not be content to let the probability of a presidential veto become the resolution. Christians need to understand that a person's worldview influences his or her views on public policy and law making; they can't be divorced. A president without a biblical worldview will feel no compulsion to protect evangelism.

In the past year, the IRS has investigated some churches over whether their political advocacy exceeded their non-profit parameters in the tax code -- in which contributions are private and tax deductible – and pushed into the realm of regulated political action committees that give up some of the subsidies for charity and are required to disclose their work on behalf of candidates for office. Yesterday, reporter Michael Haverluck of Pat Robertson’s CBN looked at this complex issue, and whittled it down to its corresponding far-right talking point:

Will pastors' ability to speak to their congregations about social and moral issues erode, or will their appeals to the First Amendment protect this right?

Haverluck cited as an example the activities of World Harvest Church of Ohio, led by televangelist Rod Parsley. Parsley, along with fellow Columbus-area megachurch pastor Russell Johnson, partnered with Ken Blackwell for a series of church “policy briefings” and political rallies, encouraging pastors across the state to mobilize their members to “vote their values” – all while Blackwell was running for governor. At issue was not “speak[ing] … about social and moral issues” so much as the pastors’ apparently brazen use of their churches to campaign for a candidate. Their efforts to build a new church-based political machine are described in People For the American Way’s report on these so-called “Patriot Pastors.”

In Haverluck’s telling, Parsley just happened to bump into Blackwell a couple of times:

Though Pastor Rod Parsley invited Republican and Democratic candidates to World Harvest Church's events, only Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell showed up.

Blackwell is a conservative Christian who opposes abortion and gay marriage. His stance on these issues with Parsley motivated 56 liberal clergy to call for in an IRS investigation.

One complaint accuses Parsley of supporting Blackwell's run for governor by letting him speak at events. Another claims that Parsley planned on having Blackwell on his radio spots, a baseless allegation denied by the pastor and the politician.

It is also contested without evidence that Parsley's "Reformation Ohio" project, aiming to register 400,000 new voters, seeks only conservatives.

In fact, Parsley and Johnson hosted Blackwell as the featured guest speaker at numerous events, in which the candidate was honored with some award or endorsed explicitly from the stage. Parsley even flew Blackwell to one “Patriot Pastor” function on a church-owned plane. This campaign was only part of a broader agenda to promote Blackwell at bigger and bigger rallies featuring famous religious-right leaders, leading up to the primary election and beyond, and indeed including radio spots featuring Blackwell. The radio spots and the rallies with James Dobson never materialized, but far from being a “baseless allegation,” this plan was posted publicly on Johnson’s “Ohio Restoration Project” web site in 2005: you can read it here.

Blackwell’s lopsided loss in 2006 was certainly a major setback to Parsley’s efforts to build a “Patriot Pastor” political machine, but don’t count the charismatic pastor out: His new book, “Culturally Incorrect,” is currently 15 on Publisher’s Weekly’s bestseller list.

Rod Parsley’s Center for Moral Clarity is calling its supporters to urge Congress to maintain federal funding for abstinence-only sex ed programs, which have come under fire in the past for inaccuracy and religious content, as well as plain ineffectiveness: a study ordered by Congress reported in April that the programs simply don’t stop teens from having sex. Warning that some members of Congress are opposed to “teaching teens virtue” and plan not to renew some of the funding, the Center writes: “Every parent should be concerned about the dire consequences ahead if Congress stops promoting healthy relationships and instead gambles on ‘safe sex.’”

Meanwhile, a report in the Nation examines how the billion dollars spent on abstinence-only has created an industry marked by “a mix of back-scratching cronyism, hefty partisan campaign donations, high-dollar lobbyists, a revolving door for political appointees and a lack of concern for results.”

One of the chief cooks is a media-shy 63-year-old Catholic multimillionaire, welfare privatizer and Republican donor named Raymond Ruddy. With close ties to the White House, federal health officials and Republican power brokers that date back to W.'s days as Texas governor, Ruddy has leveraged his generous wallet and insider muscle to push an ultraconservative social agenda, enrich a preferred network of abstinence-only and antiabortion groups, boost profits for his company and line the pockets of his cronies--all with taxpayer dollars.

Following the money swirling around Ruddy offers an eye-opening glimpse into the squalor at the heart of the abstinence-only project. One top Bush adviser left to take a job at Ruddy's charity, Gerard Health Foundation, and a senior officer at Ruddy's for-profit company, Maximus, left to take a top-level position at the Department of Health and Human Services. Leaders of Christian-right organizations that are Gerard grantees have gained advisory HHS positions--and their organizations have in turn received AIDS and abstinence grants to the tune of at least $25 million. Maximus itself has raked in more than $100 million in federal contracts during the Bush era.

Says FRC. Center for Moral Clarity: “would penalize people for expressing their faith-based beliefs about homosexuality.” (… through violent acts?) More from Christian Coalition, AFA, Harry Jackson.

Now apparently it’s about same-sex marriage, abortion. Rod Parsley’s Center decries “Left's agenda to dismantle the distinctions God established.”

With the reintroduction of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the House and the prospect that it may pass in a Democratic Congress, religious-right groups are waging a sizeable campaign to portray the bill as part of a mythical persecution of Christians. Although hate-crimes laws expand penalties for violent crimes causing bodily injury or death (as well as attempts through firearms and explosives), the Religious Right is labeling them “thought crimes” laws the “only effect” of which “is to gag people of faith.” Although federal law has punished hate crimes based on race for more than a decade, the Religious Right is incensed at the prospect of using the law to protect gays as well.

This reaction follows a pattern of asserting that gay rights – or a so-called “homosexual agenda” – will lead to the “repression” of religion in America, an anti-gay marketing effort typified by last year’s “Values Voter Summit” in Washington, where speakers from Mitt Romney to Tony Perkins claimed that, in the words of Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, “The homosexual agenda and [freedom of] religion are on a collision course.” “They know they must silence the church,” warned Perkins. At that time, the issue was same-sex marriage; the co-sponsor of the federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), said that “"If we have gay marriage, our religious liberties are gone!”

Televangelist and Ohio “Patriot Pastor” leader Rod Parsley’s Center for Moral Clarity is urging the revival of long-dormant laws against adultery in states such as Michigan, where adultery is technically a felony, although no one has been prosecuted for 36 years.

In an e-mail update to its supporters, the Center noted with approval the remark of an appeals court judge that a Michigan statute criminalizing sex involving commission of a felony, when combined with the law making adultery a felony, could lead to life in prison. “Lawmakers and judges in Michigan are holding married couples accountable for their vows of fidelity,” touted CMC, adding that “The rest of the nation should take a look at the Michigan statute. Criminal laws are designed to force people to conform to certain acceptable standards of personal behavior. Most of society's code of conduct has its roots in the 10 Commandments.”

"Adultery is a violation of biblical instruction as well as an offense against the other partner in what should be a sacred relationship,” said Parsley. But given his history of involvement in Republican politics, where will that leave him in 2008, with frontrunning presidential candidates McCain and Giuliani, along with potential dark horse Gingrich, each allegedly carrying an adulterous past that, in Parsley’s world, would put them behind bars?

At rally of 1,500 in Texas.