NEWS ANALYSIS: Prayer votes shows strengths, limits of religious right’s political clout

c. 1998 Religion News Service WASHINGTON _ The fax machines of the legions of religious right groups that steadily churn out reaction and opinion on virtually every twist of inside-the-beltway policymaking were eerily quiet in the hours following Thursday’s legislative rebuke of one of conservatism’s most cherished political goals _ a constitutional amendment to rework […]

c. 1998 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ The fax machines of the legions of religious right groups that steadily churn out reaction and opinion on virtually every twist of inside-the-beltway policymaking were eerily quiet in the hours following Thursday’s legislative rebuke of one of conservatism’s most cherished political goals _ a constitutional amendment to rework the First Amendment’s religion clauses.

Indeed, it seemed as if the usually voluble leaders and spokesmen were struck dumb by the 224-203 vote _ more than 60 short of the two-thirds needed for passage _ that killed the 86-word Religious Freedom Amendment. Sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., the proposal would have put the word God into the Constitution for the first time and restore organized _ perhaps state-sponsored _ prayer in the public schools. It also would have paved the way for extending constitutional protection to tax-funded religious education.


The defeat, far sharper than either supporters or opponents had expected, came on the heels of a reported last minute $500,000 lobbying campaign by the Christian Coalition, and challenges some of the conventional wisdom that has sprung up at the nexus of religion and politics in the decades since the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority first flexed its not inconsiderable political muscle here in the 1970s.

The proposal’s failure also demonstrated both the strengths and limits of the religious conservatives’ cause.

The first piece of conventional wisdom challenged in Thursday’s vote is the notion that the religious right _ or any of its institutional manifestations _ is some kind of political juggernaut representing the vast majority of Christians who are ready, or able, to exact political revenge on lawmakers who don’t vote their way.

This is not to say, however, that religious conservatives are without power. They make up a substantial albeit limited constituency.

Their power is limited to certain geographic areas _ principally the South and select districts in the Midwest and West. And where they do exercise power _ within the confines of the organized Republican Party _ it is power more akin to that exercised by a special interest group, such as labor unions within the Democratic Party, rather than than that of more broad-based social movements such as the civil rights effort of the 1950s and ’60s.

Increasingly, religious conservatives are able to call the tune within the GOP. Without that strength _ and the ability to deliver in their geographic strongholds _ there would not even have been a vote Thursday _ the first vote of its kind since 1971.

Nor would such Republican presidential hopefuls as Steve Forbes and Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., be courting religious conservatives with such fervor.


Randy Tate, executive director of the Christian Coalition, rightly called getting a floor vote on Istook’s proposal”a major victory,”pointedly adding:”This will go a long way to sending a message to social conservatives that this Congress is serious about addressing issues of them.” Indeed, the vote reaffirmed the Republican leadership’s commitment to solidifying its base among religious conservatives prior to this fall’s congressional elections.

The second piece of conventional wisdom put to rest by the vote is that the liberal mainline denominations _ derisively dismissed as”sideline”and politically impotent by conservatives and political media alike _ are without clout and inconsequential.”It wasn’t the ACLU who won this vote,”said Terri Schroeder of the American Civil Liberties Union.”It was the religious groups across the country who got together and said a vote for this is not a vote for religious liberties.” These mainline denominations _ Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists and others associated with the generally liberal National Council of Churches _ as well as many Jewish groups, don’t play politics in the same style as religious conservatives. But they still know how to play well and play effectively, and they provided a great deal of religious political cover for lawmakers likely to be accused of being”against God”in opposing the Istook proposal.

The debate on the Istook amendment also should puncture the notion the so-called”culture war”is being waged between people of faith and secularists. And it should lay to rest the widespread idea that American society is permeated by a”culture of disbelief”and dominated by a”naked public square.” The very public debate over the Istook amendment was waged by people of faith whose political goals _ whether human rights in China, peace in Sudan, food stamps for immigrants or ending sweatshops _ spring from their religious beliefs. And Congress _ this time _ said the public expression of those beliefs in all forums remains adequately protected by the First Amendment.

MJP END ANDERSON

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!