Kate Sheppard provides an important clarification regarding the issues-list part of the Family Research Council's straw poll:
Another element of the straw poll results came up at the press conference [with the Family Research Council]. When they said that the top four issues for "values voters" were life, marriage, tax cuts, and permanent tax relief for families, what they actually meant was that those were the top four among the narrow range voters were allowed to pick from. Each voter got to pick one issue from a list of 12 selected by the FRC that they considered their biggest priority. Other issues they listed were things like stem cell research, public display of the 10 commandments, and school prayer. Conspicuously not included: the Iraq War, national security, poverty, or environmental stewardship or "creation care" as evangelicals have termed it. These are some of the issues that the recent CBS poll found to be top concerns for a number of evangelicals and social conservatives in general.
According to an FRC representative: "We put the issues that we as an organization have worked on."
This is important information, isn't it? And yet I haven't seen it reflected in the reporting of these results, except for this post at TAPPED. Several other points need to be made about this issues poll.
Assuming the issues were limited in this way, it seems appropriate to ask -- why? Why not give people a chance to indicate that they care about issues beyond the ones already on the FRC agenda? More importantly, how can a Christian organization justify the omission of issues like poverty and peace from a wide-ranging issues list? I cannot think of any good excuse.
It also should be noted that, if the poll listed issues such as "public display of the 10 commandments" and "school prayer," and people voted for those issues, that would not tell us a thing, by itself, about whether the voters want the government to be involved in these sacred acts. (Yes, many Christians wish to display the 10 commandments in spaces that are publicly visible and to ensure that kids may pray at school, but a signficant number want to do so without government meddling in this area.) In the past the FRC has spoken in misleading ways about these issues, bleeding together non-governmental endorsements of religion, which are constitutionally protected, with governmental endorsements of religion, which are constitutionally prohibited. It will be important to watch the ways in which these results are used.
There is some good news in this area, however, although it does not emanate from the current activities of the Family Research Council.
The good news is that more evangelicals, including more politically conservative and moderate evangelicals, are speaking for themselves these days. It is becoming increasingly clear that these evangelicals do not feel represented by the most visible and vocal groups on the Christian right.
Indeed, some politically conservative and moderate evangelicals who participated in a recent press conference about a report on the culture war from Third Way said there is a great need for more voices to serve as alternatives to groups like the Family Research Council. They said that, on these culture war issues, many people are being offered "Choice A" or "Choice B" and what they really want is C or D or E. I could not agree more. For far too long, our debate on these issues have been full of false choices and fictitious claims. We can do better, and it's time we try.
Beyond making advances on the issues and improving the debate, there's something bigger involved in this effort (I am speaking as a Christian here). The willingness of more voices to speak out could help change the image of Christianity. For example, listen to this commentary by David Gushee at the Third Way report press conference, and see if you detect a difference from many of the dominant voices on the Christian right:
“I’m here today because I believe that the Christian faith teaches a spirit of openness to human beings,” said David Gushee, an Associated Baptist Press columnist and professor at Mercer University’s McAfee School of Theology. “I’m here because I believe that we have a biblical mandate to move toward reconciliation and to recognize the common humanity of all people.”
If more Christians publicly strive to set a loving tone and to be truth-tellers rather than spin-doctors, our faith would be more accurately presented to the world. That would be a very good thing.
Episcopal Assistant/Associate Rector Wanted
Unique Parish Traits:
Open Communication
Pub Lunch
Hands on Education
Sermon Seminar
Extensive Community Outreach
Multi-faceted Arts Program
St. Marks Episcopal Church
Washington, DC
Send Resumes to: msulerud@edow.org
Additional Information at: http://www.stmarks.net/
Audio Sermons at: http://www.stmarks.net/worship/sermons.html
Resumes Due By: Nov 2nd, 2008
Posted by: Scott Kubista-Hovis | October 22, 2007 at 02:15 PM