Jerry Falwell

Back in the 2005 and early 2006, the Family Research Council hosted a series of “Justice Sunday” events timed to coincide with important developments in the political battle over judicial nominations.  

The first event, titled “Stop Filibustering People of Faith,” claimed that some of President Bush’s appellate court nominees were being filibustered because of their religion and was designed to pressure Senate Republicans to deploy the so-called “nuclear option.”

“Justice Sunday II: God Save the United States and This Honorable Court” was held some months later and timed to coincide with the beginning of John Roberts’ confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court while “Justice Sunday III: Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land” was timed to coincide with the confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito.

The events featured a wide array of right-wing leaders and members of Congress such as Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Richard Land, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and Zell Miller.  Among the lesser known speakers was Jerry Sutton, pastor of Two Rivers Baptist Church which hosted the “Justice Sunday II” event, who boldly declared:

“Number one, it's a new day.
Number two, liberalism is dead.
Number three, the majority of Americans are conservative.
Number four, you can count on us showing up and speaking out.
And number five, let the church rise.”

Presumably, this isn’t what he meant by the church being on the rise:

The Rev. Jerry Sutton, a prominent Southern Baptist pastor who lost a bid to become president of the denomination, is now facing an upheaval in the megachurch he leads, including complaints that he spent church money on his daughter's wedding.

…

[S]ome Two Rivers members are accusing Sutton of failing to abide by church rules and punishing those who question his authority.

"We have a fractured fellowship. Somehow, with the Lord's help, we need to put this church back together," Harry Jester, who's been in the congregation for 32 years, said at a church meeting July 28.

One of Sutton's former administrative assistants has also said Sutton looked at pornography on his church computer and had an affair with a church staff member — charges that the church denies. The church's executive pastor, Scott Hutchings, said human resource officials at the church investigated those charges and found no evidence that Sutton had looked at porn or had an affair.

…

About 600 members attended the July 28 meeting, which was organized by the church so that rumors and allegations could be addressed publicly. Sutton also attended, but did not respond to the allegations.

At the meeting, Hutchings relayed the accusations brought against Sutton, including charges that Sutton used church money to pay for his daughter's wedding reception and has kept members in the dark on church spending.

Hutchings defended the church budget and acknowledged that the church paid about $4,300 for a reception for Sutton's daughter that was open to all church members. He said Sutton personally paid for another separate reception outside the church.

As Eric Rauchway noted in the New Republic Online this week, the Right’s myth of rampant voter fraud persists in spite of the facts of its near-nonexistence:

The divergence of rhetoric from reality resembles that of a hundred years ago, when reformers first supported registration laws. Although the reformers talked about "corruption," they didn't really mean vote-buying or repeat voting. They meant the wrong kind of people voting: "Universal suffrage," one reformer noted in 1903, meant "'tramp' suffrage"; it meant "licensed mobocracy."

Characterizing the modern right-wing campaign to place restrictions on voting -- to counter mythical “fraud” -- as simply a cynically veiled attempt to disenfranchise citizens seems unfair. Nevertheless, this view was more or less plainly articulated by Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of the conservative movement, in 1980:

Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome -- good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

Weyrich was addressing one of the seminal events in the creation of the New Right, the Religious Roundtable’s National Affairs Briefing in Dallas. At this gathering of 15,000-20,000 ministers and activists just a few months before the election, Ronald Reagan joined speakers including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly, and many more. Reagan famously declared, “I know you can’t endorse me, but I endorse you” – cementing the alliance between the Religious Right and the Republican Party that continues to this day.

Many scoffed in 1999 when the late Jerry Falwell’s magazine proposed that Tinky-Winky, a character on the “Teletubbies” children’s show, was intended as a gay role model, but recently the Polish government’s advocate for children said that she would be looking into the possibility of “hidden homosexual undertones” in the form of the character’s handbag. Ewa Sowinska backed away from the warning this week, but at least one American religious-right activist is defending her proposed investigation as a “legitimate inquiry.”

Allen Carlson of the Howard Center said, “I don't think anyone doubts that the creators of Tinky Winky intentionally were using stereotypes regarding homosexuality in creating this character.” Carlson praised Poland for “erring on the side of protecting children from harmful propaganda generated by the sexual revolution.”

Carlson support for reactionary anti-gay policies from the Polish government should be no surprise. Last month, Carlson organized the so-called World Congress of Families in Warsaw, where he and other speakers – including a U.S. State Department official – praised the Polish government for its efforts, in the words of the country’s education minister, to combat the “propagation of homosexual culture.”

As Robert Knight of the Media Research Center declared of a Poland standing alone in Europe,

This is a nation that has suffered enormously over many decades. First from Nazism and then communism. They're a tough bunch of people who appear to have the strength to resist especially the homosexual agenda. If you've been victim of communists and Nazis, you're not going to run in fright from the forces from San Francisco.

From communism to Nazism to “the forces from San Francisco” – and now to Tinky Winky.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on "The 700 Club," September 13, 2001.

Falwell apologized shortly thereafter, but reiterated his statement last year on NPR and last week on CNN.

The Kansas City Star has recently run a series of articles profiling Jerry Johnston, pastor of the First Family megachurch in Overland Park, Kansas, who apparently sees himself as the next Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson:

Today, Johnston has gained national prominence through his tough talk on homosexuality, abortion and what he views as wimpy pastors who won’t take strong stands on social issues. His positions have earned him appearances on “The Today Show” and “The O’Reilly Factor.”

Those positions have prompted Johnston to use volunteer bodyguards for personal protection, as well as for church security.

Indeed, Johnston envisions himself becoming one of America’s foremost religious leaders.

“Guess what?” he asked his congregation after rattling off the names of evangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in a 2005 sermon. “Those men are getting old. Really old.

“See, God’s calling us to step up to the plate. And there are national Christian leaders all over this nation that are looking to First Family Church to do the job.”

Over the past couple of years, Johnston has become increasingly active politically, especially in opposition to marriage equality, appearing alongside right-wing starts such as Roy Moore and Jerry Fallwell, and being featured on NPR, “Nightline,” “Scarborough Country,” and “The O’Reilly Factor,” where he told host Bill O’Reilly:

[P]astors are called of God to teach his word. And when we look at the same-sex initiative in this country, it is a shame that pastors across this country have not done a more effective job defining what the family is as God intended.

And because of the silence in the pulpit, we are in the mess we're in right now. When we saw this defeated in the Kansas House, I was shocked. I mean, we're in the land of Dorothy and Toto, and we can't even get a marriage amendment initiative on the ballot to vote on.

And so, we have met with hundreds of pastors. And we've said, we need to teach our people. We need to have surveillance of elected officials, how they're voting. And we need to get those three out of four evangelicals that did not vote in the last election, voting so that we can continue to see America endure under God's blessing.

Considering that Johnston sees himself as heir to the Robertson/Fallwell political empire, the series run by the Kansas City Star probably has been particularly helpful:

Some on the Right voiced criticism of radio host Don Imus, whose slur against the Rutgers women’s basketball team led to his firing from CBS radio and MSNBC. Jerry Falwell, who was frequently mocked on the show, called Imus’s comments “the most demeaning thing possible.” “He has built his career on saying outrageous, indecent, racist, even blasphemous things,” wrote Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, adding that Imus also targeted Focus founder Dobson. Michael Steele, the former Senate candidate and new chairman of Newt Gingrich’s GOPAC, said Imus should be fired and criticized John McCain for supporting the talker.

But many right-wing commentators defended Imus or used the controversy to push their own agendas. Quite a few decided to attack Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as “race hucksters” (columnist David Limbaugh) or “nappy-headed demagogues” (Yale Kramer for the American Spectator). Mychal Massie, a spokesman for the right-wing Project 21, described the firing of Imus as a “lynching” and accused Jackson, Sharpton, and other Imus critics as “race-baiters” who “are today fomenting unrest and belching racial bile.”

Others used the opportunity to change the subject to their own issues and suggested that Imus critics are hypocritical for not making the same connections. John Berlau of the Competitive Enterprise Institute charged that “Imus’s insensitive remarks pale especially in comparison to disparaging comments and cruel recommendations made time and again by leaders of environmental groups.” Alveda King, director of African-American outreach for Frank Pavone’s Priests for Life and a frequent religious-right speaker, declared in a press release, “Yes, Don Imus's apologies are necessary. But I demand the same from every public figure who has ever said that babies in the womb are not persons.”

And a few commentators and activists have suggested that critics of Imus are ignoring “anti-Christian” references in the media. Catholic League President Bill Donohue complained about the lack of interest in his campaign against a Manhattan boutique hotel’s display of a “chocolate Jesus” sculpture and concluded, “In other words, Catholic bashing is humorous and an exercise in liberty. Racism is awful. Bigotry, then, is neither good nor bad—it just depends who the target is.” Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas also decried a supposed “double standard”:

Why aren't these keepers of the First Amendment flame coming to the defense of Don Imus? It's because they have a double standard. Evangelical Christians, practicing Roman Catholics, politically conservative Republicans, home-schoolers and others not in favor among the liberal elite are frequent targets for the left. Anything may be said about them, and frequently is. But if someone insults the left's "protected classes," be they African-Americans, homosexuals or to a lesser extent, adherents to the religion of "global warming," they must be silenced and punished.

According to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, “The message of the ongoing Imus scandal is simple: verbal offenses against anyone other than conservatives or Christians or Jews, will be treated as crimes, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the judge and jury.” And Star Parker, author of “Uncle Sam’s Plantation,” warned that Congress is considering extending violent-hate-crimes protections to gays and wrote, “With the passage of this so-called hate-crime bill, pastors will be intimidated to condemn homosexual behavior from their pulpits. Is this the freedom we want?”

Finally, a few right-wing commentators tried to make Imus a symbol of white-male victimhood. MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan decried the “Imus Lynch Party,” writing, “The issue here is not the word Imus used. The issue is who Imus is -- a white man, who used a term about black women only black folks are permitted to use with impunity and immunity.” In a Human Events column, Mac Johnson declared that “Apologizing to Al Sharpton Was Imus’s True Racist Act” and speculated,

Now think about how stupid and racist all this is. Were Chris Rock, in the heat of a comedic diatribe, to call someone, say, a “limp-haired slut” what would he do next? Would he ask to go on David Duke’s radio show so that Duke could accept an apology on behalf of all “white people” and then issue a suitable penance? (“Donate to my charity, Chris! You don’t look sorry enough yet.”) Somehow, I don’t think so.

And Rebecca Hagelin, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, attacked “the tentacles of radical feminist thought” that she claims are “poisoning the image” of white males through the media and Title IX sports programs. “The white, Anglo-Saxon male, the young teenage guy, is probably the most discriminated against kid on the face of the earth right now,” she declared on “The O’Reilly Factor.”

See comments on the Imus controversy by People For the American Way Foundation staff and by founder Norman Lear here.

It is no secret that the GOP’s right-wing base is unenthusiastic about the current crop of presidential frontrunners.  As the New York Times reported last month:

A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.

The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign.

But in a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.

Now, the Boston Globe is reporting that another secretive right-wing political organization is going beyond the Council for National Policy’s mere complaining and is actively interviewing candidates in order to determine which nominee meets its criteria:

Leaders of a secretive coalition that includes some of the most influential social conservatives in the nation are interviewing presidential candidates in hopes of flexing political muscle and reframing the Republican primaries in 2008.

Over the past few months, members of the executive committee of the so-called Arlington Group have questioned several declared and potential White House hopefuls with the intention of settling on a single candidate, according to Arlington Group members and Republican operatives familiar with the discussions.

…

Leaders of the group have interviewed Huckabee, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, US Representative Duncan Hunter of California, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who hasn't entered the race but may later this year. It's not clear which other candidates have been or will be interviewed. The group has not yet questioned Romney, Senator John McCain of Arizona, or former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, according to those campaigns.

While the Arlington Group cannot endorse candidates itself, its high-profile and influential members certainly can:

Although it is still early, the current crop of candidates running for next year’s Republican nomination for president are almost all treating the Religious Right as their first and most important constituency. And that goes beyond the familiar names of right-wing leaders the press likes to call “kingmakers” – such as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell. At this stage, candidates are vying for the attentions of even lesser known radical activists.

This week, four candidates made the pilgrimage to Orlando, Florida for the National Religious Broadcasters convention. Sen. John McCain, who has been working overtime to reach across bridges he burned in 2000, and former Gov. Mitt Romney, who has been struggling to regain the Right’s favor after revelations of past moderation, both held private meetings with far-right activists, and it appears the meetings bore fruit.

Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, who recently organized a protest when House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (a Catholic) attended a Mass to remember the children of Darfur, said McCain “helped himself in that room tremendously today.” The National Right to Life Committee issued a statement from their exhibit booth at the convention to note their approval on McCain’s recent about-face on Roe v. Wade. And Rev. Rob Schenck, head of the National Clergy Council and Faith and Action (with his twin brother Paul), bragged about his face time with the candidates and how pleased he was with their performances:

I was able to get a read of these two men away from the cameras, the reporters and rah-rah audiences. These were honest, candid dialogues on critically important aspects of Governor Romney's and Senator McCain's personal and political principles. We got a pretty good assessment of where they are on the key issues for traditional Christians and particularly for Evangelicals. I was impressed by both, but especially Mitt Romney.

Schenck – who once walked out on a Billy Graham crusade after the famous evangelist was introduced by Bill Clinton and who implied that only Christians who are “moral failures” care about peace and justice -- cited the same narrow platform as he did in a warning to presidential hopefuls almost a year ago: abortion, gay marriage, and “the public acknowledgement of God.”

Schenck and Mahoney have worked together on a number of creative projects such as organizing a protest (featuring another presidential candidate, Sam Brownback) over the mythical “War on Christmas” and “consecrating” the seats in the Senate hearing room with oil prior to Sam Alito’s confirmation hearing. The pair also attacked “Purpose-Driven Life” author and megachurch pastor Rick Warren for inviting Barack Obama to participate in a global AIDS conference. “Having Senator Barack Obama speak on issues of social justice is like having a segregationist speak on civil rights,” said Mahoney. More recently, Schenck’s National Clergy Council expanded its religious test of Obama with an “examination and debate focused on his faith. Sadly, we will find Mr. Obama's Christianity woefully deficient.”

So far, no indication that Romney or McCain are at all bothered by their new-found friends’ attacks on the faith of their political opponents.