Smiting the Mighty Right

PA Wvs. political preachers

The housewife pauses while vacuuming the rug. Her drawl is as broad as her smile, as she declares herself "proud" to be from the "Bible Belt." But she is a mite disturbed about all those ministers meddling in politics. "Jesus didn't tell us there was only one Christian way to think politically,"she says. ";If my preacher and I don't tell anybody how to vote, then nobody's going to tell us how to worship. That's the American way, isn't it?" View ers who agree are invited to phone or write in support of a new organization called People for the American Way.

Such television plugs began running in 14 cities last week. They are the latest venture of Producer Norman Lear, creator of such series as Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman and All in the Family. Lear's obvious targets are fellow TV personalities: Jerry Falwell and other right-wing preachers who are taking part in the presidential campaign. Lear became so exercised about religious politicians that he raised $300,000 to buy air time for his spots and gave his time, talent and name to People for the American Way. Beyond the new TV spots, PAW is working on educational programs with leaflets and articles on "the nature of our pluralistic society," for distribution in schools, churches and libraries. According to its inaugural statement last week, "the danger of the Religious New Right is that they attack the integrity and character of anyone who does not stand with them." A PAW manifesto, written by former Yale Divinity School Dean Colin Williams, contends that the Protestant right threatens pluralism, democracy and, yes, the American way.

Since Ronald Reagan is the favorite of Falwell and Co., this looks like an election-eve attempt to stir a religious backlash against Reagan. But Lear, a contributor to John Anderson's campaign, denies partisan intent. PAW involves a wide assortment of public figures both secular and spiritual (among them: Editor Norman Cousins, former FCC chairman Newton Minow, Notre Dame President Theodore Hesburgh, Ecumenical Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum, President M. William Howard of the National Council of Churches). PAW, moreover, is only one of several groups. Similar alarms have been sounded in recent weeks by the bishops of the Episcopal Church, Lutheran and Baptist lobbyists in Washington and leaders of other Protestant denominations.

America has a long tradition of mixing religion and politics, from abolition to Prohibition, and up through current at tempts by both Carter and Reagan to enlist religious support. Indeed, all the groups attacking Falwell insist that they support the right of his "Moral Majority" or Christian Voice to apply religious values in the arena of public action. Many of them have avidly supported such hot political causes as the fights against segregation and nuclear power. The problem, they say, lies in the methods used by the religious right, especially widespread lists of the supposed Christian positions, and attacks on legislators who disagree. "Those who do not fall in line, by implication, are not good Christians," complains Howard, whose National Council of Churches has issued many political pronouncements. "Our efforts are not undertaken to attack other Christians who have other views."

Many moderate Evangelicals are against Falwell too, but on different grounds. They resent the New Right's claim to speak for 45 million believers, especially on issues without specific biblical underpinnings, such as the Panama Canal or SALT II . They also think the suggestion that anyone who disagrees is sub-Christian is exactly what Evangelicals have long criticized in Protestant liberals. The Evangelical journal Christianity Today is disturbed that the New Right favors "prolife" and "profamily" causes but tends to ignore the Bible's teachings regarding justice, peace, and care for the poor.

Jerry Falwell, who professes to be committed to U.S. pluralism, thinks the PAW crusade is mere partisanship. "Norman Lear sees a future threat to what he is doing, to the pornographic television he produces like Mary Hartman and Maude. He used Archie Bunker and Edith for years to demean women, got rich doing it, then gave a big donation to the women's movement. He's just playing games again, and using some liberal theologians for his own devices."

Falwell's attack is characteristically blunt. But it suggests how hot the struggle is, how profoundly it involves not only political means but religious ends, and how likely it is to continue long after the present presidential campaign. sb

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.