A New Report from Political Research Associates

CONSTRUCTING CAMPUS CONFLICT:
Antisemitism and Islamophobia on U.S. College Campuses, 2007-2011

From the Introduction:

ON CAMPUSES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, there are Jewish and Muslim students who experience bigotry. At times they feel intimidated and do not express their actual political, religious, or philosophical views in the classroom. In some cases, they do not feel safe when crossing the campus commons.

At the same time, these are not the daily experiences of most Jewish and Muslim students. The nation's campuses are not aflame with religious prejudice, nor are they places where physical threats are commonplace.

How can we explain these apparently contradictory realities? That was the challenge behind this study. Political Research Associates believes both antisemitism and Islamophobia as phenomena exist on campuses, and in this report we offer a set of tools for thinking about them.

This commentary first appeared in The Public Eye, the magazine of Political Research Associates, and is as current today as when I published it in 2008.  It was adapted from my essay in Dispatches from the Religious Left: The Future of Faith and Politics in America  -- FC

The main reason why the Religious Right became powerful is not what most people may think. Some would undoubtedly point to the powerful communications media. Others might identify charismatic leaders, the development of"wedge issues," or even changes in evangelical theology in the latter part of the twentieth century that supported, and even demanded, political action. All of these and more, especially taken together, were important factors. But the main reason for the Religious Right's rise to power has been its capacity for political action, particularly electoral politics.

Meanwhile, over on the Religious Left, many of the ingredients are present for a more dynamic movement. But the ingredient that is most remarkably lacking on the Religious Left is the one that made the Religious Right powerful: a capacity for electoral politics. Indeed, there has never been anything on the Religious Left on the scale of say, Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority or Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition--or even any of dozens of significant Religious Right groups--including the 35 state political affiliates of Focus on the Family--that have had any significant national or regional electoral muscle.

Let's pretend that Americans United for Separation of Church and State hired a former Army general for a top executive position. And let's pretend that it came to light that this man had written a memoir containing sensitive information that compromised the security goals of the United States - a book he hadn't bothered to first vet with the Pentagon, by the way.

How do you think the far right would be reacting? What would they be saying about Americans United?

Warren Throckmorton has updated the story of Michael Peroutka's donation of a dinosaur skeleton to the Creation Museum.

This report has a picture of Peroutka at the Museum earlier today dedicating the Allosaurus to the museum. This local paper has more on the story. The Museum touts the exhibit as being an indication of proof for a young Earth. Peroutka has said in the past that the promotion of evolution is an act of “disloyalty” to America.

-- FC

Michael Peroutka, the presidential candidate of the Constitution Party in 2004 and co-founder of the theocratic Institute on the Constitution, made news recently when he flipped his party to run for office in Maryland as a Republican. Less well known in the political community is his donation of a dinosaur skeleton to the creationist museum in Kentucky.

Peroutka's family foundation -- the Elizabeth Streb Peroutka Foundation (named in honor of his mother) -- purchased an allosaurus skeleton for $200,000 in 2004 and spent a decade carefully restoring it. Creation Museum proprietor Ken Ham seems to think that the acquisition of the dinosaur fossil lends his endeavor credibility.

A couple of weeks ago a girl I pick up on the church van declined to get on the bus.  She explained she was attending another church in town because it was a special night where they have a monthly scheduled food fight.  It was a few days later that I put two and two together.  The church was the same one that was receiving monthly government food from the government to feed children.  That is right, this church solicited and receives government money using it to provide meals for the local children and then indoctrinate them with their church dogma.  Having food fights, like the one in the movie Animal House, is just another way of using up  government tax collections.

Twin brothers Jason and David Benham, the sons of anti-abortion zealot Flip Benham, were slated to host a new reality program this fall on HGTV called "Flip It Forward." After a batch of their homophobic, anti-choice and anti-Muslim statements came to light, the network decided to drop the show.

However, there's no need to cry for the Benham twins as they are rapidly ascending the evangelical conservative Christian martyrdom ladder, recently occupied by Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson and Chick-fil-A's Dan Cathy.

Michael Peroutka, who ran for president in 2004 on the Constitution Party ticket, is also a singer-songwriter who's planning to release a CD of tunes. He recently toured Michigan high schools and colleges to promote his Christian Reconstructionist vision of how people should "abolish" government and "rebuild it again" in a way that conforms with his theocratic views.

At one supporter's home, Peroutka grabbed his guitar and belted out this ditty for the kids, including boys wearing flannel shirts and suspenders over blue jeans:

Unlike the National Football League, which took a small but significant step forward towards inclusiveness with the drafting of the openly (and proudly) gay Michael Sam, several Archdioceses around the country are taking giant leaps backwards.

Last September, Pope Francis made what many considered to be an extraordinary statement when in an interview "he criticized the church for putting dogma before love, and for prioritizing moral doctrines over serving the poor and marginalized," The New York Times reported. Throughout his first year, Francis has clearly been concerned with expanded the church, not further contracting its membership.

It appears, however, that Archdioceses in Cincinnati, Ohio, Oakland, California, and the state of Hawaii have either not gotten the message or are being just plain ornery. Those districts are demanding that their teachers at Catholic schools pledge fealty to Catholic doctrine in their actions inside and outside the workplace.

In all of the tumult last about the Supreme Court's ruling in Town of Greece v. Galloway, some other interesting stories got overlooked.

One of them concerns the director of public health for the city of Pasadena, Calif., who, it seems, is in a spot of trouble.

The 2013 film "Philomena" tells the moving story of an Irish woman who had an out of wedlock son in the early 1950s.  The nuns with whom she was sent to live sent her son to America for adoption. The film is at once the story of Philomena Lee's search for her child - and a lesson in Christ-like forgiveness as well as of enduring Catholic faith.

So, who would find such a story to be anti-Catholic? Why Bill Donohue, of course!

This is a post I update from time-to-time as the need arises or as resources come my way regarding terms we use to define and discuss the religious and political right. -- FC

One of the challenges in writing about the Religious Right and what to do about it is the matter of terms and definitions.  

From the earliest days of Talk to Action, we have often written about how unfair labels and terms of demonization are not only inaccurate and opposed to basic standards of scholarship and journalism; but are unrelated to the basic values of people of good will, and often politically counterproductive to boot.

The purpose of this post is not to rehash all that. I should also hasten to say that there are often controversies large and small about terms, just as there are about the movements, organizations and individuals they may be used to describe. I post this not to say that there are always perfect answers, but to point to some resources on basic definitions and usage for those who are interested in trying to get it right.

(The following is a reposting of my 2010 article on the National Day of Prayer.  Some of the links are no longer live, but the post continues to be relevant today.)

The "official" National Day of Prayer Task Force, which oversees thousands of National Day of Prayer events, does not represent all Americans.  It does not represent all Christians.  It doesn't even represent all evangelicals. Leadership of "National Day of Prayer Task Force" events is limited only to those who will sign a form stating that they adhere to the Lausanne Covenant, the belief statement of an international umbrella mission organization started by Billy Graham in 1974.  The Lausanne Movement refers to the ongoing structure of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (LCWE) which works to streamline and organize worldwide proselytizing of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and "Nominal Christians" which they state are the "approximately one billion people classified as Christians who "still need to be evangelized" and are described as "found extensively among Protestants, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics." In other words, the National Day of Prayer Task Force is limited to leadership that support the goal of ultimately ending all other faiths and belief systems that fall outside of the Lausanne Covenant.