Christian Right

It was a scant five weeks until the 2006 midterm elections, and photogenic Christian Right leader Tony Perkins gripped the podium and smiled confidently at the 1700 activists gathered at the Values Voters Summit. Perkins predicted that his new coalition of Christian Right stalwarts would tip the scales for the Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. He was, of course, wrong.

As George Bush’s approval ratings on the Iraq war and the economy continue their slide downward, the Republican Party is determined to use the gay marriage issue and other punitive anti-gay measures to retain control of Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections, and defend their one-state control of state legislatures. Why revive the anti-gay marriage fight? Because it works.

The anti-abortion movement uses B.A.D science and agenda-driven journals to back up false claims about abortions, in an effort to make abortions illegal.

The Christian Right is using public schools and their science curriculums to further their agenda to shift the culture in the United States.

“Make no mistake,” wrote Avery Post, the national president of the United Church of Christ in 1982, “the objectives of the Institute on Religion and Democracy are the exact opposite of what its name appears to stand for.”

As the Right carries out its anti-abortion strategy within the Unites States, it is important to remember their global anti-abortion strategies as well.

What are “hard” and “soft” dominionism and where do we see it in mainstream politics?

Rutgers University history professor Jackson Lears, in a recent letter to The New York Times, “How a War became a Crusade” (3-11-03), suggests a reason why Bush is so cavalier about the possibility that war in Iraq will have unintended consequences.

Misinformation from the absitnence-only-until-marriage approach to sex education marginalizes many different communities.

The United States was founded as a “liberal democracy,” in which a secular government acts to protect the civil rights and liberties of individuals rather than imposing a particular vision of the “good life” on its citizens.