The Christian Right: Engaged Citizens or Theocratic Crusaders?

Abstract

This article offers a normative evaluation of the Christian Right's impact on American democracy. It argues that our response to the question of whether this movement enhances or diminishes democracy turns on our understanding of the ideal of democracy. When viewed as a participatory ideal, the Christian Right's mobilizing practices enhance democracy. When viewed as a deliberative ideal, the Christian Right's practices diminish the deliberative virtues of toleration and free and open debate. These conflicting assessments point to an important democratic paradox. They show that the very same practices that inspire the participatory virtues of active political engagement also incite the deliberative vices of intolerance and polarization. To address this paradox, I argue that we ought to strive for a balance between pure participation and pure deliberation. The primary problem with Christian Right organizations like Focus on the Family, I will argue, is that they tend to disrupt this balance. They inspire active participation at the expense of deliberation.

Aversion to and Understanding of God Talk in the Public Sphere: A Survey Experiment

“…Others claim that if the purpose of the public sphere is to share reasons for policy proposals, it is not an actual dialog if one person is not offering his or her real reasons, which may be religious. Legal scholar Steven D. Smith writes that “it is the imposition (under the heading of ‘public reason’ or similar notions) of artificial constraints on discourse, and in particular the insistence that only secular talk is suitable for public discourse, that stifle conversation” (Smith :40). Stout thinks that the use of false reasons is itself disrespectful, turning the Rawlsian claims that public reason provides respect for others on its head (Stout :72).…”

“…The origin of concerns about mutual understanding is that giving reasons that are accessible to all citizens is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. Theorists conclude that there is a “‘reason‐giving requirement,’ which calls upon citizens and lawmakers to confront conditions of disagreement by offering one another reasons,” and that these reasons can only be those ‘that others can be reasonably be expected to endorse,’” which means avoiding “reasons based on religious doctrines” (Klemp :5). As Robert Audi summarizes, “when there must be coercion, liberal democracies try to justify it in terms of considerations — such as public safety — that any rational adult citizen will find persuasive and can identify with” (Audi :16).…”

The Collective Action Framing of Conservative Christian Groups in Britain

“…The principal response to this -which has emerged in an un-planned and un-coordinated fashion -has been the deployment of a collective action frame built upon two primary assertions: first, that secularisation poses a serious threat to the social and moral probity of the nation, and second, that it represents a growing danger to religious freedoms. This approach, which draws on the salience of identity politics and a language of minority rights, contains strong similarities to (and, indeed, may well have been influenced by) the political strategy adopted by the Christian Right in the United States (on this see Jelen, 2005;Klemp, 2010;Thomas and Olson, 2012). 5 The first of these themes pulls together a number of interrelated points, maintaining that the decline of Christianity in Britain has led to a loss of social cohesion, the rise of a crude Christians are discriminated against in the public square … you've got a hundred years of a secular experiment that's gone all wobbly all over the place and people see religion as a threat to their power, to their influence and their world view (interview #3).…”

“…see Klemp, 2010) and highlight the schismatic effects of promoting strong and reified religious identities (Bruce, 1994). Importantly, the extent to which findings based on the Another potential problem with using collective action frames based on secular arguments is that this can reduce the amount of control that religious groups have over the direction of their own narrative claims and structures.…”

Storytelling in Liberal Religious Advocacy

“…This imbalance has shaped understandings of religion's role in policy debates. Indeed, secular anxiety about public religious discourse tends to emanate from concerns about conservative religious voices, seen as advancing a policy agenda that runs counter to liberal democratic values (Klemp 2010). Recently, however, progressive religious advocates working to wrest the moral monopoly from the Religious Right have attracted attention among close observers of this field (Dionne 2008; Jones 2008; Sullivan 2008).…”