People for the American Way said:
People For the American Way was founded in 1981 by Norman Lear, Barbara Jordan, Father Theodore Hesburgh, and Andrew Heiskell. The following Statement of Purpose was adopted by the founders and other civic, religious, and business leaders who comprised the initial Board of Directors.
In times of hardship, in times of crises, societies throughout history have experienced wrenching dislocations in their fundamental values and beliefs.... We are alarmed that some of the current voices of stridency and division may replace those of reason and unity. If these voices continue unchallenged, the results will be predictable: a rise in "demonology" and hostility, a breakdown in community and social spirit, a deterioration of free and open dialogue, and the temptation to grasp at simplistic solutions for complex problems.
People For the American Way was established to address these matters. Our purpose is to meet the challenges of discord and fragmentation with an affirmation of "the American Way." By this, we mean pluralism, individuality, freedom of thought, expression and religion, a sense of community, and tolerance and compassion for others. People For the American Way will reach out to all Americans and affirm that in our society, the individual still matters; that there is reason to believe in the future - not to despair of it - and that we must strengthen the common cords that connect us as humans and citizens.
The long term agenda of People For the American Way is broad. It includes reducing social tension and polarizations, encouraging community participation, fostering understanding among different segments of our society, and increasing the level and quality of public dialogue. As an educational institution, we shall communicate with the American people through printed materials, radio, television, public lectures and discussions.
Now, to address your other statements:
Voegelin said:
"People for the American Way" has published training manuesl on how to fight the "religious right". Norman Lear and his Hollywood buddies did create the group to drive faith out of the public square. Of course their mission statement doesn't say that. But look at what they do. All anti-Christian, all the time.
Of course, no specific examples are cited. The far right wing which has taken over America is VERY good at making blanket statements such as "PFAW is trying to drive faith out of the public square." and "PFAW is anti-Christian, all the time" -- but as a general rule, they are quite weak at presenting specifics, and the "specifics" which ARE presented have to do with the thwarting of the extreme right wing's agenda, whch include:
- establishing a single religion (Christianity) as the state religion -- very likely with conservative Christianity being the single approved expression of that religion.
- running huge budgetary deficits to force the government to spend as little money as possible on any social programs (since the bulk of the budget will be allocated for debt repayment and national defense.
- running stealth candidates for lower offices (school boards, state boards of education) as well as Federal judgeships who favor removing consumer protections; removing abortion as an option even in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother; censoring the press and the airwaves to allow for the expression of the views of the far right wing only; a reactionary social agenda designed to stifle any dissent, to marginalize dissenters, to force gays back into the closet and remove what few legal protections they may have -- and at the state level, to gerrymander Congressional and state districts to put as many far-right wingers in office as possible and to marginalize Democrats and liberals as much as possible.
It's interesting that Republicans used tactics such as stalling appointments of judges by Bill Clinton in Congressional committees, thus leaving a huge number of Federal judgeships open until they could take over the government -- and then complain that Democrats have filibustered a very small number of the most extreme judges nominated by Bush even though
the Democrats approved the rest of Bush's nominations. Of course, since Republicans have absolute control of our airwaves (even though they like to complain about the "liberal media") that little fact isn't brought up much.
Voegelin said:
PFAW liberals are blocking the nominations of a justice from the California Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court. Are those states "theocracies?"
Well, I can't speak for California; but I
DO live in Texas and have lived in Texas most of my life -- and I can say, "Texas is
all but a theocracy". We have conservative-mandated "abstinence only" education AND the nation's highest number and rate of teenage pregnancies as well as the highest rate of sexually-transmitted diseases. What do we continue to mandate that our teenagers, despite the glaring failure of "abstinence only" education? "Abstinence only" education.
And that's but just one example.
Voegelin said:
But the intent wasn't to predict anything anyways. It was to smear Christians.
Interesting. I am an active, practicing Christian and I have never felt "smeared".
I have stated several times on CF that I have a large cross, a liturgical calendar, a Lutheran Book of Worship, the Book of Common Prayer, and a Bible in plain view in my office at work, and nobody has ever complained in the six years I've worked there about any of these. I pray (silently) before meals, have been know to pray before major exams, and have worn ashes marked in the Sign of the Cross on my forehead to work on Ash Wednesday. Nobody has ever complained about that, either.
Of course, I allow others the same freedom to practice (or not practice) their faith as they see fit, so long as they don't evangelize their faith to me during business hours. And that's just the thing -- too many conservative Christians want not only the right to practice their faith (which is fine), but special privileges as well: the right to sponsor public prayer at public functions (a right which the rest of us don't have); as well as the right to have their interpretation of Scripture (an interpretation many of us don't share) be the guiding force in how our laws are shaped and our society functions.
Of course, any objection to their agenda is interpreted as "a smear" or "persecution" -- even if those of us who are objecting are practicing Christians.
Once again, the answer lies in "the gray area" -- allowing others the expressions of their faith as conservative Christians are allowed the expression of
their faith. Unfortunately, it seems like a "winner take all" scenario: we'll do it my way, or my way (and your way doesn't count).
THAT'S why moderate and liberal Christians join organizations such as PFAW.
