BACK TO VIEWS

Views

Why Does the Radical Religious Right Seem to "Own" Family Values?
Reverend Carlton W. Veazey
President and CEO

Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, President and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, is a leading social justice advocate. After joining the Coalition in 1996, he founded the Black Church Initiative to " break the silence about sexuality" in African American churches and in 2000, began the South Africa Initiative to work with churches in Cape Town to reduce HIV/AIDS. Reverend Veazey, a graduate of Howard University School of Divinity and an ordained Baptist minister, has received many awards for his leadership in reproductive rights, including most recently the Voters for Choice Reproductive Freedom Award.

Over the past 25 years, Radical Religious Right groups have moved from the fringes of religion to the centers of political power. They coined the term " family values" to garner political support for their anti-woman fundamentalist religious agenda. They' ve been so successful in convincing the public and press that they really do care about families that their agenda is being enacted into law piece by piece, with no regard for those who do not share their religious beliefs.

Consider the real consequences of the dominance of family values groups such as the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, James Dobson' s Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council. George W. Bush' s decision to restrict federal funds for embryonic stem cell research places the value of excess frozen embryos slated for destruction above that of living human beings who suffer from diseases and injuries that might be cured by this research. The decision to side with the notorious anti-choice extremist Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey and withhold $34 million in funds for the United Nations family planning program means (statistics). The increase of funds for unproven abstinence-only education in public schools deprives an unknown number of students of factual information about contraception that could prevent HIV. Nominating only those who oppose Roe v. Wade, have no record on it, or are neutral to the federal bench will produce decisions that limit women' s rights and options.

It' s time to challenge the Christian Right' s claim to stand for "family values." Let' s define their " family values" as what they—asserting the power of Christianity and of men in an increasingly diverse culture where the " Leave It to Beaver" white, Protestant family with the stay-at-home-mom is no longer the norm. It' s up to moderate Americans of all faiths and beliefs to assert a humane vision of family that respects women and children and values equality and diversity.

The Radical Religious Right' s narrow definition of family is derived from their belief in an authoritarian God and literal interpretation of Biblical statements regarding family. They believe that God mandated a family structure with the husband as head of household, having complete authority over his wife and children, as Christ has over the church. They view sex outside of marriage, divorce, and non-traditional families—single parents, gay and lesbian couples—as nothing less than a violation of God' s will. Their worldview demands that they enforce their notion of the morally correct family, not only in their own religious communities but also in public life.

While the Bush Administration has vigorously pursued the " family values" agenda, often as " compassionate conservatism," the Radical Religious Right staked out this territory many years ago. In 1982, the Family Protection Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate. Commenting on this legislation, ethicist Daniel C. Maguire explained that the the Radical Religious Right planned " to control our families, our schools, and our political freedoms" under the guise of protecting the family. As Maguire wrote in his 1982 book, The New Subversives, Anti-Americanism of the Religious Right, the men who wrote the legislation—not surprisingly, there were no women—saw a " strong link between the family and society... The picture they paint of family life is what their state would look like... fascist, sexist, and racist."

Those are strong words, but time has proven them true. The Family Protection Act of 1982 is not very different from the Bush Administration legislative agenda that undermines the rights of women, gays and lesbians, penalizes poor women and women of color, and redefines religious freedom as the freedom to promote the majority religion over others. Now as then, " family values" is code for the type of family and society that the Radical Religious Right believes God has commanded them to create.

In the Radical Religious Right agenda, the school system is primarily an extension of the family and as such should conform to Christian ideals. Modern science is questioned if it conflicts with fundamentalist beliefs about the creation of life. Equal opportunity programs for girls are suspected to be schemes to undermine male authority. No wonder so much emphasis is placed on school vouchers, school prayer, private schools, home schooling, and other measures that abandon public education. The ideal is a school system that propagates " Christian values," not critical thinking.

The family values agenda would more properly be called the anti-woman agenda. The Radical Religious Right ferociously resists feminism and equality and would gladly strip women of their sense of dignity and their rights. Preying on the many real concerns about family stability, they simplistically prescribe male-dominated marriage and control by men of their wives and children as the solution to most family problems and especially to poverty. Most of us know that it is not feminism, equality or affirmative action that has placed great stress on families, but the high cost of raising a family, economic instability, loss of jobs, discrimination against women in the workforce, racism, poor schools, and rampant crime, among other factors that affect us all. Improving public education, making health care accessible to all, raising the minimum wage, strengthening workers' rights, and reducing the tax burden on low and middle-income earners will improve family stability. If we address the real problems, then the right-wing family values agenda will be seen for what it is—male dominance over the family.

The centerpiece of the Radical Religious Right attack on women is the crusade to confer the status of " person" on the fetus and to prohibit abortion. As Daniel Maguire observed, the attack on women' s ability to choose abortion is " the start-off point of attack on a whole range of civil liberties and human rights" that go far beyond motherhood. The conservative religious worldview holds that the life of a fetus is equal to that of a woman and regards motherhood as the most important and satisfying role for a woman and her principle obligation. As James Davison Hunter writes in his influential 1991 book Culture Wars, abortion, therefore, "represents an attack on the very activity that gives life meaning and on religion itself" and is contrary to the mother' s duty to " protect her children." For most Americans, from most religious perspectives, motherhood is an important role but one among many. A mother' s responsibility is first and foremost to the children who are born. Abortion in this context is a choice for women faced with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, a difficult and complex choice but one that women as moral agents are fully equipped and able to make. Moreover, the legal right to an abortion ensures women' s bodily integrity and freedom from coercion in childbearing by church or state. Ironically, the family values agenda also opposes emergency contraception—basically, birth control pills taken to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex—and even opposes contraceptive availability to youth who are already sexually active.

Scholar Frederick Clarkson has written that the Radical Religious Right believes it is " building the kingdom of God" in America—and the American family is the basic building block. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and their followers are certain they know what God intended for this kingdom and they will not tolerate disagreement or differing views. We can' t ignore or minimize the danger they present. The horrifying judgment of Falwell and Robertson after the devastation of September 11—that God was punishing America for its sinfulness—shows their true intent: to take power and impose their religious beliefs on us all. It' s up to us—Americans who value religious freedom and individual conscience—not only to redefine family values to include all families but also to address the very real family problems that trouble our nation.