|
The Christian right and American foreign policy
by Martin William
"Some may ask why a guy like me, who talks about family issues, would go to a place like Harvard to discuss foreign policy," Gary Bauer mused in one of his daily radio addresses broadcast to more than 400 U.S. stations nationwide. A fair question. At first glance, Bauer seems an unlikely choice to speak about international affairs. For more than a decade, his influential religious-political organization, the Washington-based Family Research Council, has first and foremost dedicated itself to defending the "Judeo- Christian value system" of the traditional family unit and promoting "Biblical principles" in American culture. Issues such as school prayer and abortion typically top the organization's agenda. But Bauer has also proved himself a force to be reckoned with when it comes to American foreign policy. He has emerged as a potent critic of China and has testified before Congress as part of a campaign to deny that country most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status. Moreover, he has lobbied vigorously on behalf of legislation that potentially would impose sanctions on dozens of countries that persecute or limit the freedom of Christians. Through these actions, Bauer and other members of the so-called Christian Right have put the United States, and indeed the rest of the world, on notice that religious conservatives will not limit their agenda to the water's edge. They are actively and increasingly involved in efforts to influence a wide range of U.S. policies, including support for Israel, arms control and defense, and funding for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Nations. On some of these issues, the Christian Right borrows heavily from its allies in the not-necessarily-religious "New Right" (also known as "movement conservatives") represented by such organizations as the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, and the Free Congress Foundation, a think tank and grassroots organization with its own cable network. But on most international issues, the motivation is the same as that driving religious conservatives' domestic agenda: distrust of secular government; opposition to any perceived threat to "traditional family values;" determination to preach and practice their beliefs without hindrance or restriction; and, less obvious to most secular observers, a conviction that increasing globalization is a fulfillment of dire Biblical prophecies foreshadowing the return of Christ and the onset of Armageddon. The very term by which most conservative Protestants identify themselves - "evangelical" - announces their intention to carry their message, as Jesus instructed, "unto all the world." But is the world ready for the Religious Right? An Egyptian editorial observed with some dismay that "the religious card" has gained a "startling frequency of use" in the U.S. government. The Chinese government declared that it opposes "creating confrontations in religion or interfering in the internal affairs of another country under the pretext of religion." A representative of the Middle East Council of Churches in Beirut warned that American religious activism evokes "memories of the Crusades" and is seen in his region as "a new invasion of American foreign policy and some evangelical groups who want to convert Muslims." Such expressions of concern mirror the apprehension felt among segments of the American public that view the emergence of religious conservatives as a growing threat to the separation of church and state and see the Christian Right's campaign to defend family values as an attempt to legislate morality. This apprehension, in turn, has given way to frequent, hopeful predictions of the Religious Right's imminent demise. After 20 years of such failed predictions, however, one fact has become clear: Anyone who expects to make sense of American politics, domestic or foreign, over the short or long term, must accept that religious conservatives have become an enduring and important part of the social landscape. MOBILIZING THE FAITHFUL Although the Religious Right is not a mainstream movement, it is not a marginal one either. White evangelical Protestants, from whom the movement draws most of its members, comprise nearly 25 percent of all registered voters - three times the number of African American Christian voters, four times the number of nonreligious voters, and twelve times the number of Jewish voters. Only a fourth to a third of evangelical voters openly identify with the Religious Right, but that segment, on average, is better educated, better paid, and more likely to hold professional jobs than other evangelicals and, indeed, than the American population as a whole. According to a 1994 study by Campaigns and Elections magazine, they dominate the Republican Party in at least 18 states and have substantial influence in at least 13 others, a situation many conventional Republicans find incomprehensible and maddening. Participants and observers alike agree that the movement has been largely reactive in origin and motivation. Over the last 40 years, a series of catalyzing events and developments - Supreme Court decisions forbidding public schools to sponsor prayers and devotional Bible reading, sex education that is tolerant toward premarital sex and homosexuality, the rise of feminism and the legalization of abortion, the emergence of AIDS and the push for gay rights, soaring divorce rates, increased sexual and violent content in the media, concern over lowered educational achievement - have either generated a direct backlash or created an environment that serves as an ongoing impetus for mobilization. In the early 1980s, evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell and his organization, Moral Majority, with strong encouragement and assistance from New Right operatives, were the most visible representatives of the Religious Right. After Falwell closed down Moral Majority in 1986, other leaders and groups came to the fore with better organization, greater political sophistication, and stronger connections to Washington insiders. The most prominent of these were the Christian Coalition, begun by religious broadcaster and cable television mogul Pat Robertson and political whiz kid Ralph Reed; Focus on the Family, led by radio broadcaster James Dobson, perhaps the most influential of the new crop; the aforementioned Family Research Council, headed by Gary Bauer, a key Reagan adviser who recently announced his intention to run for president; Concerned Women for America, by far the largest public- policy women's organization in the United States; the American Family Association, which keeps a close watch on media that are deemed offensive; and a legion of allied groups opposing abortion and gay rights, pushing for educational vouchers that enable Christian parents to send their children to private religious schools, and mounting myriad other offensives in support of their agenda. Leaders of these groups come together several times a year at meetings of the Council for National Policy (CNP), a low-profile organization whose membership includes heads of various radio, television, and print media organizations; key congressional figures such as Representatives Dick Armey (R-TX) and Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Senators Trent Lott (R-MS) and Jesse Helms (R-NC); conservative ideologues and operatives such as Oliver North and Paul Weyrich (Free Congress Foundation); and major financial supporters of conservative causes, including members of the wealthy Coors and DeVos (Amway) families. Also playing a role in the CNP are several prominent "Reconstructionists," people who seek to reconstitute society on the basis of strict adherence to Biblical law, including stoning and other harsh punishments for violations of Biblical prohibitions against adultery, homosexuality, unbelief, and promulgation of false doctrine. Religious Right leaders recognize they are in the minority but compensate for their modest - though hardly negligible - numbers by mastery of technology and organization. Robertson, Dobson, and dozens of like-minded colleagues reach millions on a daily basis by radio and television. Virtually all the organizations use computers and the Internet to identify supporters, raise money, propagandize and inflame, generate avalanches of mail and floods of faxes and phone calls to Congress, and get out the vote. Equally if not more important is an emphasis on organization. Again and again, they identify constituencies, establish organizations, set up networks for communication, provide programs and candidates to rally around, and point people toward the voting booth. [See box on page 70.] The ability to mobilize the electorate rapidly, coupled with an effective lobbying apparatus, has endowed the Religious Right with a level of influence that is unique in American politics. "A lot of groups have a great Washington presence and some have great grassroots," observed one member of Congress, "but few combine them both." Bound together by intense personal networks common among Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, members tend to rely on a few sources of information - particularly the pulpit, print, Web sites, direct mail, and specialized mass media - that deliver a clear and highly partisan theological and political message. The number and reach of such media are truly impressive. The United States alone has more than 200 Christian television stations and nearly 1,500 Christian radio stations, almost all of which are evangelical and most of which carry at least some programs produced by Religious Right leaders or supporters. Pat Robertson's 700 Club has a daily audience of about 1 million viewers and his Christian Broadcasting Network beams programs to some 90 nations in more than 40 languages. James Dobson's Focus on the Family uses part of its $114 million annual budget to produce eight radio programs, the most important of which - the daily, half-hour Focus on the Family - reaches an estimated 5 million listeners each week. The American Family Association and Concerned Women for America reach hundreds of thousands with their half-hour programs. This insular network not only facilitates mobilization but also fosters a missionary zeal seldom matched by those on the Left and almost never by the more moderate middle. A LIGHT UNTO NATIONS To the considerable disappointment of religious conservatives who had figured prominently in his 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's administration paid little attention to their list of primary concerns, most notably banning abortion and reinstating school prayer. Instead, most were mollified by having their photographs taken alongside the Great Communicator, which gave the illusion of access to power. Unable to accomplish much on the home front, several key players assumed substantial roles in support of conservative political and economic policies abroad. They found it natural to support Reagan's hard-line stance against godless communism. Encouraged by special State Department briefings, Christian Right leaders offered both ideological and financial support to anticommunist forces in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Most notably, Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network contributed between $3 million and $7 million to U.S.-backed, anticommunist Contras in Nicaragua and Honduras. Robertson also lionized Guatemalan military dictator (and Pentecostal Christian) General Rios Montt, whose brutal regime killed thousands of Indian tribespeople and other civilians regarded as procommunist or, as at least one Guatemalan official charged, as "possessed by demons." Falwell, along with several other TV preachers, defended apartheid forces in South Africa by claiming they had been misportrayed by liberal media and by depicting the African National Congress as a Soviet puppet. More notoriously, Robertson forged strong ties with the late Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire's corrupt, long-time dictator - an alliance the entrepreneurial broadcaster used to gain forestry and diamond-mining concessions for his African Development Corporation. More importantly, and consistently; virtually all segments of the contemporary Christian Right have been staunch supporters of Israel, a surprise to observers familiar with the anti-Semitic virulence of such pre-World War II Christian conservatives as radio commentator Father Charles Coughlin. On founding Moral Majority in 1979, Falwell described it as, among other things, "pro-Israel" and declared that "whoever stands against Israel, stands against God." This commitment stems not from guilt over past Christian sins against Jews but from a theological doctrine widely shared in fundamentalist and Pentecostal circles known as "Dispensationalist Premillennialism." In this view, a complete restoration of the nation of Israel, including the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, is a prerequisite to the end of the present age (or "dispensation"), which will usher in the Second Coming of Christ and the establishment of his millennial reign. Therefore, unless they wish to be complicit in trying to thwart God's grand plan, Christians must support Israel. While overlooking the irony that this scenario envisions a mass conversion of Jews, some Jewish leaders have welcomed the efforts of America's evangelical Christians to bolster Israel's defense against hostile neighbors. Predictably, as the Religious Right has matured and gained strength, particularly with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, it has pursued its domestic agenda with renewed vigor and somewhat greater success. And taking advantage of a Congress that has proved itself to be extremely assertive in its efforts to shape U.S. foreign policy, religious conservatives have also sought to widen the scope of their international agenda. Some of the Religious Right's causes - opposition to the UN global warming treaty, support for NAFTA, skepticism of the IMF, and encouragement of stronger missile defense systems - seem generated mainly by its close alliance with the New Right. Both movements share preferences for a free market, limited government, strong defense, and national sovereignty, as well as a deep-running contempt for the Clinton administration. But in many other cases, the same values that underlie the Christian Right's domestic policies also drive its international agenda. Religious activists have consistently opposed any foreign - policy initiative that might weaken parental control over children, facilitate abortion, expand the rights of homosexuals, or devalue the role of the conventional homemaker and mother. In 1998, social conservatives in the House of Representatives nearly blocked $18 billion in funding for the IMF, in part because the fund channels money to countries and organizations that regard abortion as an acceptable part of family planning or population control. The UN is also a favorite whipping boy. Exponents of the Religious Right's agenda vehemently attacked the platform of the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing, charging that it placed too much emphasis on reproductive freedom and freedom of sexual expression, depicted marriage and motherhood in a negative light, and implicitly endorsed homosexuality. In the same vein, they have criticized the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, arguing that the treaty contains dubious provisions that would guarantee children the right to access pornography and other age-inappropriate media or to express their sexuality without having to answer to their parents. "The humanist element of such documents," a Family Research Council position paper declared, interferes with the sacred parent-child relationship and has "the potential to destroy all that is best in Christian civilization, replacing it with a profoundly chaotic, harmful and ultimately evil empire." Similarly, the Christian Right not only sees the United Nations as a threat to the American family but as a mechanism that allows a secular elite to threaten family values worldwide. They deride programs that promote abortion, sterilization, or contraception as a form of "population imperialism" that seeks to "globalize the safe-sex ideology." Abortion, in particular, is regarded as an anathema that reveals the hypocrisy of nations that claim to adhere to international norms such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights while simultaneously terminating the lives of unborn children (the "most vulnerable members of the human family"). American support for such initiatives, religious conservatives argue, ultimately will antagonize the rest of the world. Political activist and part-time presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, a staunch ally of the Christian Right, has warned that such "moral imperialism" will "disfigure America's reputation in the Catholic countries of Latin America and the traditional societies of Africa and play perfectly into the hands of Islamic extremists already making strides vilifying America as the Great Satan of the Muslim world." The campaign against the United Nations has had an impact. In large measure because of opposition from the Religious Right, the United States did not contribute to the UN Population Fund in 1998, jeopardizing a program that provides contraceptives to nearly 1.4 million women in 150 countries. More tellingly, the billion or so dollars that the United States owes the United Nations - the United States and the UN disagree on the amount - has long been held hostage; House Republicans aligned with the Religious Right have insisted that funding be tied to legislative language barring aid to organizations that seek to legalize or fund abortions. Congress did send a funding bill to the president in 1998, but because of these restrictions, Clinton followed through on his clearly announced intention to veto the bill, even though he strongly favors clearing up the debt. While reluctant to criticize Congress too publicly, UN officials are said to be exasperated with GOP congressional leaders. Another mobilizing issue among the Religious Right is the persecution of Christians. In some countries, this persecution is dramatic - in Sudan, evangelicals allege, more than 1 million adult Christians have been executed, some by crucifixion, and thousands of children have been sold into slavery. In China, which the Family Research Council calls "the world's foremost aggressor against Christians," large numbers of Christians (and, in some areas, Muslims and Buddhists) have been imprisoned and sentenced to hard labor because of their beliefs. In others, particularly Muslim and formerly communist nations, including Russia, the offense is discriminatory practices that prohibit or hinder Christian evangelization or, in some cases, worship. Evangelicals are particularly concerned about restrictions in the "10/40 Window," a latitude belt that circles the globe and includes regions in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East that have been designated as prime areas for Christian missionary work. Charging that American media, business, and government have largely ignored or tolerated these wrongs, representatives of the Christian Right have sought to block reaffirmation of China's MFN status - a guarantee (now known as normal trade relations status) that the United States will extend to China the lowest tariff rate it applies to any other country. Members of the Christian Right were also ardent proponents of the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, which targeted dozens of nations for economic sanctions. [See box above.] The Clinton administration sought to head off such strict measures and, in an apparent attempt to mollify religious conservatives, undertook a series of bureaucratic initiatives to demonstrate that religious persecution would be a priority issue in its foreign policy. Declaring that the United States had always "led the way in championing religious rights around the world," the White House announced the formation of the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad. The State Department said that it would expand the coverage of religious persecution in its annual human rights reports and, at the behest of Congress, produced a special study that focused predominately on the plight of Christians. American diplomatic staff worldwide were instructed to make religious freedom a prominent advocacy issue. And the State Department issued a special "MFN and Religion in China" fact-sheet that included extensive testimonials from Christian missionary organizations arguing that the denial of normal trade relations status for China would only increase religious persecution. Opposition to religion-based economic sanctions was also found among American business executives and many Wall Street conservatives, who accused the Republican-led Congress of being in the pocket of Christian conservatives and of inhibiting global trade and investment. A lobbyist for a Fortune 500 company that had given substantial support to Republican candidates complained that "everything went south in a big way" after the Republican leadership cozied up with the Religious Right. "They gave away the store and we were on the shelves." Business leaders have contended that the continued presence of American businesses in non-Western countries will gradually inculcate American civic values, including religious tolerance. Republican supporters of the bill snorted that businesses are more concerned with money than with human rights. But even the Heritage Foundation, normally one of the Religious Right's closest allies, criticized the bill, charging that its broadly drown sanctions would harm American interests abroad while doing little to advance religious liberty in the affected countries. In the end, Congress passed a watered-down version of the legislation in late 1998. The International Religious Freedom Act gives the president considerable flexibility in determining where and when unilateral sanctions should be imposed; nevertheless, the new law could impact as many as 77 countries, including close American allies and trading partners such as Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Among the Christian Right, suspicion of the IMF, the UN, the International Criminal Court, and other multinational or broad-scope organizations such as the European Union, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Council of Churches, and, in some quarters, the Roman Catholic Church bubbles up from several wells. Part of the motivation is standard-issue isolationism and a fear of compromising American safety and economic interests and sacrificing national sovereignty to an international, liberal world order. Part is the conviction that the United Nations and other efforts at global governance are controlled by Marxists, secular humanists, and radical (often homosexual) feminists bent on eradicating traditional Christian values - with, perhaps, a standing UN military force ready to enforce their goals. But mingling with these concerns - in varied strength, depending on the individual and the organization - is another tenet of Dispensationalist Premillennialism. Among some evangelicals there is a firm belief that the reign of the Antichrist is imminent and will feature a unified political and economic dictatorship so complete that buying or selling will be impossible without his authorization. A mighty False Prophet will lead a global religion to bolster this regime. Not all members of the Religious Right subscribe to Dispensationalism; the increasingly influential Reconstructionists, for example, believe that the return to Biblical law may take centuries. But Robertson, Falwell, and indeed, most of the better-known TV preachers are true believers, as are millions of their followers and grassroots political activists. In the context of this Biblical prophecy, terms such as "global governance" and "new world order" resonate with ominous tones. Over the decades, Dispensationalists have regularly identified prominent world leaders - Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Anwar Sadat, Josef Stalin, and even Henry Kissinger - as plausible Antichrists, and they trembled at the rise of the European Common Market, which they had identified as the Ten-Horned Beast of chapters seven and eight of the Book of Daniel. The identification suffered a bit when the beast grew a couple of extra horns (Portugal and Spain joined in 1986), but the European Union's growing power and newly unified currency make it a cause for anxiety once again. AN ONGOING CRUSADE So where do matters stand as we approach a new millennium, with or without a Second Coming? For nearly 20 years, pundits have periodically weighed in with declarations that the Religious Right has passed its peak. Indeed, poor showings in the 1998 congressional elections for candidates backed by the Christian Coalition may signal growing resistance to the movement's leaders and positions. It is patently mistaken, however, to imagine that religious conservatives will soon give up the fight to reshape American domestic and foreign policy to fit their vision of what a godly nation should stand for. Former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed has assured both allies and opponents that "we are going to stay and stay and stay. If it takes three presidents and six congresses to pass these items, we're going to be there in the morning, we're going to be there at night when they turn the lights out. We will be there as long as it takes to see that these issues are addressed." On another level, the Religious Right has an endurance that goes beyond the zeal of its activists. When Gary Bauer addressed his audience at Harvard, he spoke of the need for "moral values" to be at the center of American foreign policy. In that regard, even nonreligious practitioners of foreign policy would offer a heartfelt "amen." Americans have long believed that their success in engaging the world can best be measured by the triumph of their values abroad. Even the Clinton administration, which is regarded by religious conservatives as the antithesis of their movement, has stressed the need to promote around the world the "God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The tricky part is determining how those values are defined and implemented. The American government has offered its interpretation. The Christian Right will always stand ready to offer theirs. WANT TO KNOW MORE? Readers interested in the history and recent development of the Religious Right may wish to consult William Martin's With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America (New York: Broadway Books, 1996). Other books providing a broad look at the movement include Michael Cromartie, ed., No Longer Exiles: The Religious New Right in American Politics (Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993), and John Green, et al., Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996). For sharply critical accounts of the movement, see David Cantor's The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America (New York: Anti-Defamation League, 1994); Frederick Clarkson's Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy (Monroe: Common Courage Press, 1997); Sara Diamond's Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right (Boston: South End Press, 1989) and Roads to Dominion: Right -Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States (New York: Guilford Publications, 1995); and Clyde Wilcox's Onward Christian Soldiers? The Religious Right in American Politics (Boulder: Westview Press, 1996). Readers interested in learning more about Premillennialism should consult Paul Boyer's When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992). For current, firsthand acquaintance with the movement, the Internet is a rich resource and should by all means be explored. An excellent starting point is the Web site of the Heritage Foundation, not only for its own material but also for its links to dozens more conservative organizations. Other key sites on the Right include those of the Free Congress Foundation, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council. For sites maintained by organizations that oppose the Religious Right, see in particular those of People for the American Way and Americans United. The complete text of Gary Bauer's speech at Harvard is available at the university's Web site. Chapter summaries of William Martin's book are also available on the Internet. For links to these and other relevant Web sites, as well as a comprehensive index of related FOREIGN POLICY articles, access www.foreignpolicy.com. RELATED ARTICLE: Onward Christian Voters Prior to every election since 1990, the Christian Coalition has distributed voter guides and "scorecards" in more than 70,000 churches throughout the United States. The scorecards track how often candidates vote in line with the coalition's position on issues such as abortion, education policy, and judicial nominations. According to the Washington-based People for the American Way - which monitors the activities of the Religious Right and opposes its agenda - the coalition distributed 33 million voter guides before the 1994 election and 45 million before the 1996 election. Although the scorecards are purportedly nonpartisan, a lawsuit filed by the Federal Elections Committee has charged the coalition with illegally influencing elections by disbursing the cards, which consistently give the highest marks to Republicans. In 1998, for example, the House GOP average was 88.7, with top-ranking officials such as Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Tom Delay (R-TX) scoring a perfect 100. In contrast, Democrats averaged 19.3 percent, with many scoring zero. The coalition's political fortunes soared with the election of the Republican-led 104th Congress. Since then, among members of Congress elected in the 1994 and 1996 elections, a significant percentage have scored high marks on the scorecards [see below]. However, despite the Religious Right's pouring millions of dollars into Republican coffers, the 1998 elections were an unqualified disappointment for the movement. Twenty-two of its 28 "favored sons" lost their races, and only 54 percent of "conservative Christian voters" cast ballots for Republicans, compared with 67 percent in 1994. 103rd Congress
House Senate
Percentage scoring 100: 16.8 17
Percentage scoring 80+: 30.8 26
104th Congress
House Senate
Percentage scoring 100: 26.7 26
Percentage scoring 80+: 43.4 36
105th Congress
House Senate
Percentage scoring 100: 25.5 17
Percentage scoring 80+: 42.3 43
RELATED ARTICLE: Faithful Lobbyists The Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council are not the only religious organizations that have made their presence known in Washington. A diverse spectrum of religious groups has long sought to influence U.S. policy on issues ranging from foreign aid to arms control: The United States Catholic Conference (USCC): The USCC maintains a government liaison office that informs Congress about public- policy issues of concern to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Describing foreign assistance as a "moral obligation" that plays a vital role in efforts to "reduce poverty and assist growth and development" worldwide, the USCC has urged Congress to reverse the pattern of declining U.S. aid. The USCC supported U.S. legislation to protect religious freedom abroad but warned that economic sanctions should be imposed "sparingly and with restraint" to avoid punishing the poor for the actions of their governments. The American Jewish Congress: Often characterized as the "attorney general of the Jewish community," the American Jewish Congress was a key player in drafting U.S. legislation that penalizes companies that adhere to the Arab boycott against Israel. Every year, the American Jewish Congress brings elected officials to Israel so that they can develop an understanding of Israel's security concerns and "the critical importance of an undivided Jerusalem." The American Muslim Council (AMC): Dedicated to the political empowerment of Muslims in the United States, the AMC lobbies Congress on issues ranging from religious civil rights to the Middle East peace process. The AMC denounced the United States' military strike against Iraq last December and has opposed congressional resolutions that recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. In response to reports of religious persecution in China, the AMC has called upon President Bill Clinton to highlight the plight of Chinese Muslims in his dealings with Beijing. The AMC supports continued sanctions against Serbia and has endorsed a congressional resolution that seeks to put Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic on trial as a war criminal. The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL): Since 1943, the FCNL has lobbied Congress on issues of concern to the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). The organization has sought to promote global security by supporting measures such as the international ban on land mines and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The FCNL has urged the U.S. government to pay all United Nations dues and has called upon Congress to shift budget priorities away from defense spending toward humanitarian needs. FP RELATED ARTICLE: God on the Hill Freedom from Religious Persecution Citing the persecution of Christians in countries such as China and Sudan, the Religious Right has lobbied heavily for legislation that would impose sanctions on countries found guilty of violating religious rights. Last October, over the objections of U.S. businesses, Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act, which creates a White House office for reporting religious persecution worldwide and allows the president to choose from a variety of measures, ranging from diplomatic protest to economic sanctions, to punish offending countries. It also includes a provision that allows the president to waive sanctions in cases deemed vital to U.S. interests. China's Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Trading Status Christian leaders charge China's communist regime with persecuting religious adherents and violating human rights. In June 1997, Family Research Council president Gary Bauer argued before a House subcommittee against renewing China's MFN status. Alleging that Beijing's rulers "view Jesus Christ and, by extension, Christianity as the greatest threat to their continued control over the Chinese people," Bauer accused China of persecuting and torturing its 50 million Christians and promoting abortion with its "one child per couple" policy. Last year, Bauer's organization issued a "report card" on China, claiming Beijing was the most active supplier of contraband weapons to Iran and Iraq and a player in the India-Pakistan nuclear race. Despite these efforts, heavy lobbying by U.S. businesses and the Clinton administration led Congress to renew China's trade status in July 1998. Funding for Multinational Organizations Believing that population control programs promoting contraception and abortion violate human rights, Christian Right leaders have pressured Congress to withhold U.S. contributions to organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the United Nations. Delays in funding have jeopardized U.S. voting rights in the UN and threatened the IMF's ability to stabilize collapsing currencies in Asia and Latin America. In a massive budget deal last October, Congress appropriated $17.9 billion to replenish IMF coffers. But the UN is still waiting for an estimated $1 billion worth of U.S. arrears. A State Department spending bill that would have authorized a sum just short of the full payment was vetoed last October by President Bill Clinton because it banned U.S. aid from reaching any international family-planning organizations that support abortion. FP WILLIAM MARTIN is Harry and Hazel Chavanne professor of religion and public policy in the department of sociology at Rice University and a senior scholar at Rice's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. He is the author of With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America (New York: Broadway Books, 1996). -1- | |
