Related articles and links |  1 of 3

In cookies, Family Research Council's message crumbles
It's likely that there will be more religion news out of the Republican National Convention this week than there was out of the Democrats' meeting last month. Weblog doubts, for example, that Amy Sullivan will be able to parse out each biblical allusion or reference to faith that comes from the pulpit podium. But at the Democratic convention, religion was an important subplot because the question was new: Is the party becoming dogmatically secularist? For the GOP, questions about the role and power of religious conservatives are pretty old. Will there be any truly newsworthy stories about faith and politics coming out of the convention? We'll keep watch, but Weblog's hopes aren't too high.

Speaking of Sullivan, she has closed down her Political Aims weblog with a triumphant crow about her party's "welcoming people of faith." Now she'll be blogging over at Washington Monthly, where she's newly employed. She has several posts already on faith and politics, but her most recent accuses religious conservative groups of hypocrisy. "Shouldn't it matter that conservatives don't get exercised at all over pro-choice Republican Catholics in high-profile positions?" she asks. The real problem, she says, is that the press follows the lead of activists like the Catholic League's William Donohue: "How many reporters do you think are going to ask Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki or Arnold Schwarzenegger if they should refrain from taking Communion?"

Sullivan says groups like the Catholic League should be treated like any other partisan organization. They don't really care about making sure that Catholic politicians treat Communion in accordance with church doctrine. "What they do care about," she says, "is defeating Democrats."

On some days, Weblog might offer some counter evidence. Or Weblog might add that similar "non-partisan" religious groups exist on the left (check out Sojourners' "God is Not a Republican" ad in today's New York Times. Apparently God is not a Republican —or a Democrat, the ad notes—but he sure likes the Democratic Party platform and wants his people to say so during the GOP convention.)

But today, Weblog isn't going to argue with Sullivan over thinly veiled politicking by religious conservative organizations. A press release from Family Research Council arrived at exactly the wrong time for that. The self-proclaimed nonpartisan organization, which "champions … virtue" and "promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview," according to its mission statement, says it will "motivate the pro-family base" at the Republican National Convention by handing out fortune cookies. No, Weblog isn't going to complain about the FRC use of occult objects—we'll let others complain about the cookies. Weblog is more concerned about the cookies' messages, which the FRC says "the Bush campaign should use to motivate pro-family voters." Three of the four are mere sloganeering:

Real Men Marry Women: Support a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage

Save the Constitution! Impeach an Activist Judge

Cures for Diseases - Know the Score: Embryonic Stem Cell 0, Adult Stem Cell 45

Does the FRC really think the Bush campaign should use these slogans? This is a clear departure from the serious, reasoned approach to public policy matters the FRC once took. Since its leadership change, the Family Research Council seems much less interested in research than it used to, but this press release in particular suggests a shift from reason to rhetoric. Why explain the heterosexual nature of marriage when you can just say that gays aren't "real men"? Why make a case against human life as commodity to "motivate the pro-family base" when you can treat the debate as just a matter of scoring? Why advocate for families in poverty when you can rally for the impeachment of "activist judges"—something your own organization says is "extremely difficult" and hasn't even suggested before this month?

next page... |  1 of 3

August (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48