Date: 25 August 1993
Subject: Hocus Focus
From: citizens@cscns.com (David Bruce, PhD; Member, Citizens Project)
X-Copyright: Copyright (c) 1993 by David Bruce.  This material may
	be freely copied and distributed for noncommercial purposes
	provided that this notice remains intact.  Commercial use of
	this material requires prior written permission from the author.
X-Disclaimer: THIS MATERIAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF
	CITIZENS PROJECT.  IT IS PROVIDED SOLELY AS A SERVICE TO OUR
	PARTICIPANTS.

     Recently I attended a Focus on the Family Community Impact
Seminar.  I must admit from the onset I consider myself somewhat of
a spiritual refugee from a fundamentalist upbringing that I realize
was both bigoted and racist.  Nonetheless, as a member of the Board
of Directors for Citizens' Project, I've been a part of several
group meetings with several folks from Focus on the Family.  Before
the first meeting we received a tour of their facilities: 900
employees handle 10,000 letters, 2,000 phone calls and 200 pleas
for counseling support daily.  With 10's of millions of dollars
flowing through annually, this is not just a benign little church
group; this is big business.  Our first meeting with Focus was
surprisingly cordial and it looked as though we in Citizen's
Project might have something to gain from maintaining channels of
communication with this group.  Our second meeting, to discuss
Colorado's Amendment 2, was considerably more acrimonious.  At this
meeting, I saw many of the symptoms of homophobia which I'd assumed
served as a basic bond between members of Focus.  So, it was a
surprise when another board member of Citizens' Project, Richard
Skorman, called one afternoon to tell me we'd been invited to
attend one of Focus' day-long Community Impact Seminars.  I agreed
but with some ambivalence.

     Resigning myself to the fact that there was a great deal to be
gained by attending, I decided to try to put aside my personal
history and pre-existing attitudes and play the role of an
objective and dispassionate reporter.  However, as I drove into the
overcrowded parking lot of the Pulpit Rock Church in Colorado
Springs, it was clear that this crowd differed markedly from the
folks I'd had breakfast with at Poor Richard's Espresso Bar.  The
crowd of 500 seemed to be made up of equal numbers of mostly
middle-aged men and women whose most striking characteristic was
the absence of any striking characteristic.  Only a few wore suits
but everyone's clothes were new, neat and freshly pressed.  I must
admit it was a relief when Richard finally appeared in his rumpled
leather bomber jacket and pony tail and took a seat next to me.

     The presentations were all well organized and neatly divided
into separate blocks.  Participants were provided note taking
outlines to follow along but we were assured that the entire text
of all the presentations would also be provided at the end of the
day.  Topics to be covered included: the Biblical case for social
and political involvement, the crisis of institutional authority,
the separation of church and state, the crisis of cultural
authority, understanding American culture, what can be done and how
to do it.  I think it is especially important for those of us who
may eventually find we disagree with Focus to understand as clearly
as possible what their position is.  So I'll try and present their
arguments as objectively as I can and reserve editorial comment
until later.  You may consider much of what follows as my Cliff
Notes version of the six hours of presentations I observed.

     First the Biblical case for social and political involvement
was presented.  Scriptural referents for each of the following
points were provided on multi-colored transparencies: a Christian
view of love and compassion compels us; a Christian view of human
beings assumes it; the effectiveness of evangelism depends on it;
the Christian view of government requires it; and the character of
God demands it.  An interesting distinction was made between social
service and social action; the former involves amelioration of
individual symptoms while the latter is aimed at rectifying
systemic ills.  John, the first presenter, made it clear that
social action was more important.

     A general discussion of the contemporary state of our nation
(we have more adult bookstores than McDonald's) led to a search for
who was to blame.  Who could be charged with precipitating "this
crisis of institutional authority"?  Survey information concerning
values and beliefs was used to show that educators, politicians and
journalists had completely lost touch with the rest of the American
population.  Attitudes about such things as sex education,
pornography, abortion and the importance of "strong religious
values for political leaders" provided a clear contrast between
these liberal "gatekeepers" and the rest of the population.  Even
the clergy of moderate Christian churches were identified as being
culpable because of their reticence toward pronouncements of
absolute truth and hesitancy to completely accept the Bible as the
"inerrant word of God".  (These institutional delinquents were
referred to as "gatekeepers" so often; I wondered if they didn't
really mean "gay"-tekeepers.)

     The next presentation contained a series of dramatic audio
re-enactments of great moments in American history.  John made a
joke about how much trouble they had gone to get the original
recordings from the Mayflower, but surprisingly few people sitting
around Richard and me laughed.  The objective of these
dramatizations was clear; it was to show that America was and
always had been a thoroughly Christian nation.  The separation of
church and state was revealed to be a very recent and completely
unprecedented misapplication of a casual phrase Jefferson had once
used in an obscure letter to a friend.  Somewhere within this
discussion John used the term "majoritarianism" (I wasn't sure, but
I wondered if he was referring to democracy).

     The next point to be made was that current misrepresentations
of history have caused us to lose touch with the "transcendent
standards" which have historically sustained us as a nation.  This
crisis of cultural authority has set us adrift in a sea of
relativism (which would be denounced shortly).  Alan Bloom's, The
Closing of the American Mind was provided as academic corroboration
of our intellectual demise.  William James, a famous psychologist
(from the last century) observed that when most people think they
are thinking, all they are really doing is rearranging their
prejudices.  This was mentioned at several points throughout the
day so I assume it was pretty important.  I "think" the implication
was that without cultural (viz., Biblical) anchors, humans don't
have the capacity to really think and all we're really doing is
fooling ourselves by rearranging prejudices.  John said the
greatest mistake Christians can make is to assume that others think
"Christianly".

     After a break for coffee and donuts, a new speaker, Greg, took
over.  A former USC philosophy professor, Greg set out to answer
the question for the audience of "why your neighbors think like
they do".  Reminding us that "ideas drive culture", Greg divided
Western civilization into four sets of ideas.  What he would later
label as "objectivism" was introduced as the philosophy of
Aristotle, Christianity and 20 centuries of Western Culture.  In
this system of thought, God, the soul, values, other people, and
the real world of science are all "known" and absolutely nothing
need be accepted on "blind faith".  Greg suggested our cultural
demise began with the advent of empiricism in the 17th and 18th
century.  This new system of thought was described as maintaining
that only science and other people could be known and that God,
values and the soul were matters of blind faith.  Noting that such
a belief system is "inherently unstable", Greg moved us to
empiricism's natural consequence: relativism (which Greg claimed
undermined science itself).  In the relativistic framework
everything depended upon one's group.  Absolutes were no longer
"known"; our cultural decline was nearly complete.  The final  (and
lowest) stage, however, was subjectivism.  In this thought system
the only thing that is knowable (and thus available as a criterion
for moral decision making) is "my feelings".  Greg then skillfully
demonstrated the advantages of objectivism by dealing with a host
of contemporary issues (e.g., love and sex, truth, reality and
God).  Tolerance was identified as "the new absolute" and then
blamed for accelerating our demise.  Greg did make an interesting
observation that reality was "what you hit when you make a mistake"
and therefore any system of ideas could endure the weight of only
so many miscalculations before they collapsed.  He suggested the
collapse of subjectivism would complete the grand philosophical
circle and bring us back to objectivism.

     Participants were left on their own for lunch. I needed a
beer; Richard needed something more substantial; we went to the
Hogan.

     Presentations resumed promptly at 1 pm.  To warm us up, John
provided a whimsical top ten list of things Christians could do
while the rest of society was going to hell (which included going
shopping, calling Dr. Dobson, seizing the oval office, sand-bagging
your house and watching Christian TV, and calling Dr. Dobson back).
"Seriously though folks, the key to the reclamation of society is
your local church".  "To be effective everyone needs to realize
this is going to be a very long term project"; "there are no short
cuts or quick fixes".  "The church needs to be mobilized"; "lone
rangers need not apply".  "Congregations must be educated". (An
extensive bibliography covering: abortion, adoption, AIDS,
elder-care, child care, creation vs. evolution, pregnancy, divorce,
education, euthanasia, homosexuality, homelessness, inner-cities,
the media, national issues, pornography, prisons, religious
liberty, rock music, runaway children, sex education, social and
political involvement and substance abuse was provided in the
appendix of one of the glossy notebooks provided participants).
"Once educated, people need to be given something constructive to
do" - (it was pointed out many times that rash action was almost
always counter productive).  The importance of connecting with
other churches was stressed over and over and over again.

     The final presentation was designed to provide helpful hints
on how to win arguments.  Three possible ways were proposed:
quoting authority, rallying the troops and persuasion.  Quoting
authority was dismissed as being ineffective because others don't
accept scriptural reference as being sufficient proof any more (and
most of the secular authorities had already been debunked).
Rallying the troops was also discouraged due to its tendency to
lead to escalation and scare off the people Focus would most like
to attract (viz., moderate Christians).  Pointing out that becoming
parents was a strong inducement toward conservatism, the audience
was encouraged to be patient but persistent in presenting
"rational" Christian arguments to their friends and neighbors.
Christians' own beliefs as reflected by their good works and
cheerful spirit would naturally pull others toward them.
Reflection and understanding were recommended as prerequisites to
action.  Using groups of like-minded individuals within committed
congregation was offered as the best way to bring about desired
social changes.

     Tom from the Rocky Mountain Family Council was in the anchor
position.  He told lawyer jokes and related examples of how a
clever congregation was able to thwart the distribution of condoms
at a high school in the Denver area (implying that since the AIDS
virus is so tiny it can permeate latex, condom distribution is
actually a plot to infect children).  He also told how a television
appearance by two parents showing a pornographic library book
embarrassed a school system so badly, all books on the occult were
withdrawn from the school library.  He closed by soliciting
volunteers to become Community Impact Contacts for their
congregations.  (I'm sure there were hundreds.)

     Overall this was a very impressive show.  The speakers were
articulate, clever and exuded friendliness.  Their
thirty-something, boyish charm oozed nice from every pore.  The
order of presentation, the multi-media, multi-colored,
multi-presenter, audio-visually supported, well-choreographed
messages were received appreciatively by all those around us.  Two
45-minute question and answer periods allowed the audience of over
500 an opportunity to interact personally with the speakers (and
also provided evidence these people were already convinced of
everything that was to be said long before they arrived at the
meeting).

     Personally, it was unnerving to feel so badly when surrounded
by so much positive enthusiasm  and apparent good will.  But a
whole day of being exactly 180 degrees out of sync with such a
large audience left me frazzled and confused.  I needed time to
review and reflect and try and make sense of what had transpired.
I know William James would point out that all I could do was
rearrange my prejudices, but at least this might help me feel a
little better (maybe I really am just a loathsome "subjectivist"
after all).  I thought I might start by trying to identify what I
thought Focus' goals and objectives were and save analysis of their
arguments til later.  After a little reflection, it was obvious to
me that their primary objective was to convince a majority of
"Christians" to embrace their own evangelical perspective and once
again accept a literal interpretation of New Testament Scriptures
as the only guide for making social as well as personal moral
decisions.  Their preferred means to achieve this end also seemed
pretty clear: to mobilize and energize like-minded Christians in
local congregations to convince their more moderate (and tolerant)
neighbors by "persuasive arguments".

     So what was wrong with all this?  Well one thing that was
wrong was that the arguments they'd constructed seemed to be
untrue.  Even though these were religious issues, I found myself
feeling as though I'd been deceived.  Was I the only one who saw
this?  Let me show you what I mean by discussing two of their
pivotal arguments: the four ideas systems underlying culture and
the evidence concerning the recency of the "mythical" separation of
church and state.

     The presentation of ideas underlying culture was made by a
former faculty member of the University of Southern California.
I'm sure the assumption was that this guy really knew what he was
talking about; USC is a well known and prestigious university (they
usually have winning football teams and even occasionally play in
the Rose Bowl).  Admittedly, no one could be expected to completely
cover the history of western philosophy in an hour without a great
deal of simplification, but my expectation was that fair treatment
would be given to major perspectives.  I wondered if Greg had done
this.  I also wanted to know what had been left out of his
presentation and if its omission might have created this apparent
dichotomy between objectivism and an eventual demise to absolute
subjectivism.  What I found from looking through a few old
philosophy texts and other references is that Greg's entire
presentation was a classic example of the creation of a faulty
dilemma through omission, exaggeration and gross
oversimplification.

     There is no single dimension of philosophical development.
The faulty dilemma of strict adherence to Biblical standards or
abandonment of any external standards for making ethical decisions
is an artifact of oversimplification.  Even if we accept the
general categories of objectivism and subjectivism, the contrasts
Greg made are very misleading.  The greatest distinction between
these approaches are the processes they employ rather than their
particular claims of knowledge.

     Objectivism is any of several views which stress objective and
external reality, especially as distinguished from subjective
experience or appearance.  Perhaps the most well known objectivist
philosophy is the Formalism of Immanuel Kant, an 18th century
German philosopher.  Kant suggested there is a pre-existing (a
priori) right and wrong which can be discovered by humankind.  He
suggested the "categorical imperative" could be used to discern
these external moral laws.  His formula (at least in part) was "Act
only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will it
should become a universal law."  Kant's formalism is not
incompatible with empiricism; in fact, it depends on a reasoned
consideration of objective evidence to define universal or absolute
truth.  It seems as though the categorical imperative would
preclude the literal adoption of the whole Bible as "universal
law".  Greg hadn't mentioned Kant.

     The form of objectivism presented as being the only
alternative to eventual absolute subjectivism was much closer to
evangelical "scholasticism".  Scholasticism was a philosophical
movement dominant in Western Christian civilization from the 9th
until the 17th century.  It combined a fixed religious dogma with
the mystical and intuitional tradition of patristic philosophy.  It
attempted to find and document natural evidence consistent with
pre-existing religious assumptions.  Human reason was not employed
to discover truth but to explore, explicate, and defend truths that
were already known.  These "truths" themselves were not subject to
scrutiny, doubt or inquiry (this would have been "heresy").
Historically speaking, this approach formed the basis for
feudalism, canon law and led western civilization into what we
refer to as "the dark ages".  The implications of a renewal of this
kind of non-empirical, pseudo-rational paradigm are serious.  As
Bertrand Russell observed in 1950 " ...various forms of madness -
communism, Naziism, Japanese imperialism - are the natural result
of the impact of science on nations with a strong pre-scientific
culture."  Scientific Creationism (one of today's great oxymorons)
is another example of where this kind of thinking leads.  Greg
hadn't mentioned "scholasticism" as an example of how incorrect
idea systems are only able to bear so much weight before they
collapse.  In fact, Greg hadn't mentioned "scholasticism"  (or
evangelism) at all.

     Let's now look at the other half of Greg's false dichotomy
between philosophies; the empirical group.  Empiricism is the
practice of relying upon observed evidence and experimentation to
discover principles.  Its application to the natural sciences is
often credited with bringing us out of "the dark ages".  The
scientific method is "the empirical method".  One of the earliest
forms of empiricism was positivism.  The positivist perspective was
that theology and metaphysics physics were imperfect modes of
learning about the world.  Positive knowledge could only be based
on the observation of natural phenomena and their properties and
relations discovered and verified through empirical methods.
Relativism is a view that knowledge is relative to the limited
nature of the mind and that the conditions of knowing anything
(especially ethical truths) depend upon individuals' assumptions.
(Actually, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity in physics
contains a very similar notion.)  Subjectivism suggests that
knowledge is limited to conscious states and elements in experience
(i.e., awareness).  As Greg pointed out, this perspective does
suggest that individual feelings of pleasure, pride or fulfillment
ought to be criteria for appraising the moral value of alternative
choices.  Subjectivism, as far as I could ascertain, however, is
not the same as hedonism and does not suggest that only one's own
pleasure ought to be considered.

     The assertion that relativism and subjectivism were the only
or even the most prevalent alternatives to objectivism turns out to
be untrue.  Several other philosophical perspectives seem to be
more tenable and also more widely representative of contemporary
thinkers.  Two of these which seem very compatible with empirical
methods warrant comment: contextualism and utilitarianism.
Contextualism suggests that absolute moral laws do not exist but,
in contrast to relativism, would not leave questions of right and
wrong entirely to the group.  Contextualism suggests that every
ethical decision is unique; therefore all factors must be weighed
by those involved in the problem before a decision is made.  As
Alfred North Whitehead observed: "the simple minded use of the
notion 'right or wrong' is one of the chief obstacles to the
progress of understanding".  Similarly, Dietrich Bonhoeffer
suggested: "Principles are only tools in God's hands soon to be
thrown away as unserviceable".  Both these views reflect
contextualist perspectives.

     Utilitarianism is another ethical perspective which seems to
influence political and social choices more strongly than
subjectivism.  Utilitarianism suggests "the useful" is "the good"
and choices should be evaluated in terms of their consequences.
For example, the question of the legalization of abortion should
depend on the social consequences of the alternatives rather than
a retrospective search for divine guidance.  Utilitarianism
maintains that moral decisions are those that secure "the greatest
possible good for the most people".  What is "good"?  There could
be considerable debate about this (and as contextualists suggests
there should be) but "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
seems like a good place to start.  But wait, this "pursuit of
happiness" stuff makes it sound like "subjectivism" might have even
influenced our founding fathers, (remember those paragons of
fundamentalism we spent an hour listening to in order to dispel the
"mythical" separation of church and state).

     I must admit that although the dramatic readings were very
well done, I couldn't help wondering how representative they were
of the true feelings of those who framed our Constitution.  I
turned to one of my favorite books, George Seldes', The Great
Quotations.  Many passages struck me as being both relevant and in
direct contradiction to what John had presented.  I've grouped
these into several categories.  On the issue of personal beliefs I
found interesting entries by Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin and
Thomas Jefferson.  In the Preface to Reason the Only Oracle of Man,
Ethan Allen wrote: " I have generally been denominated a Deist, the
reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious I am no
Christian, except mere baptism makes me one".  Ben Franklin's glib
comments reflect such a casual irreverence, its hard to picture him
as a fervent fundamentalist: "Lighthouses are more helpful than
churches"; "I think vital religion has always suffered when
orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue."  Thomas Jefferson seemed
somewhat vexed when the question of his personal religion was even
raised: "I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of
another.  I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change
another's creed.  I have ever judged of others' religion by their
lives.. for it is from our lives and not from our words, that our
religion must be read". Perhaps the most elegant expression of the
religious mood of the time was reflected by Thomas Paine in The Age
of Reason, (often cited as the intellectual foundation of the
American Revolution): "I believe in one God, and no more; and I
hope for happiness beyond this life... I believe in the equality of
man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice,
loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy
(more of that nasty subjectivism?)... I do not believe in the creed
professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek
church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any
church I know of.  My mind is my own church..."

     I also found citations relevant to John's claims that the
United States was really founded as a "Christian nation".  In his
autobiography, Thomas Jefferson makes specific mention of an
incident which occurred during the framing of the Virginia Act for
Religious Freedom in 1786: "Where the preamble declares, that
coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our
religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words 'Jesus
Christ', so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus
Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was
rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to
comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the
Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the
Infidel of every denomination".  Similarly, in the treaty ending
hostilities between the United States and Tripoli, President John
Adams begins Article 11 with these words: "As the Government of the
United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
Christian religion, as it has itself no character of enmity against
the law, religion or tranquillity of the Musselmen (Muslims)...".

     The primary point Focus tried to establish was that the
separation of church and state was a myth created spontaneously
after WWII by some misguided federal judge.  I found many entries
decrying the potential danger of co-mingling the affairs of church
and state.  In his Discertation on Canon and Feudal Law in 1765,
John Adams provides a historical assessment of the consequences of
allowing religious beliefs to become law (a direct result of
scholasticism): "All these opinions they (the clergy) were enabled
to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a
state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing
into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge (perhaps
similar to Focus' attack on educators and journalists?).  Thus was
human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and
deplorable servitude to him (the Pope) and his subordinate
tyrants...".  In his first Inaugural Address in 1801, Thomas
Jefferson appears to have been equally contemptuous of pre-existing
conspiracies between religions and governments: "And let us reflect
that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under
which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little
if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked,
and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions".  I know the
words "separation of church and state" do not appear verbatim in
any of the forgoing, but the general intentions seem pretty clear.

     One final impression left by the "voices from the past"
presentation was that our founding fathers unanimously embraced the
scriptures as the inerrant and undiluted word of God.  This also
turns out to be a rather untenable claim.  Noting that the Bible
had been altered throughout history to meet the needs and
machinations of the hated Roman Church, Thomas Paine had many
unkind words to say about the scriptures.  Here are just a few:
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries,
the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness,
with which the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we
call it the word of a demon than the word of God.  It is a history
of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind".
Thomas Jefferson, having studied many of the earliest texts in
their original languages, went even further.  Decrying the
corruption of the New Testament by centuries of self-serving
papists and early Christians, he deleted major portions and
retranslated others to produce what has come to be known as The
Jefferson Bible. (It has recently been republished by Beacon Press
and is available at most local bookstores other than those owned by
Focus.)  What's been left out?  Try finding any account of the
resurrection or ascension.  I hasten to add that none of the
forgoing "proves" the intentions of the framers of our Constitution
any more than did John's selection of quotations.  These words do,
however, show there's reason to suspect the representativeness of
the recorded voices.

     To summarize briefly, Focus is a virulent form of
neo-scholasticism.  Its disciples assume the word of God is
revealed, literally and unequivocally, by evangelical
interpretations of the scriptures of the New Testament of the
Bible.  Although largely unstated, I believe their goal is to
convince all Americans to accept and embrace these beliefs to the
exclusion of all others as a condition of citizenship.  Their
initial strategy appears to be to convince the majority of
Americans who "claim" to be Christians but do not yet accept the
absolute truth of Jesus Christ to abandon tolerance and join Focus.
The way they plan to do this is through "logical persuasion"
(although their own concept of truth requires only Biblical
correspondence rather than empirical support or objective
evidence).  They will exaggerate, oversimplify and misrepresent
information to support their claims.

     Their basic argument goes something like this: The world is in
a terrible state.  Institutional authorities (i.e. educators,
journalists, politicians and even some clergy) are directly to
blame (although  homosexuals, communists, atheists, secular
humanists and other liberals are especially culpable).  The
separation of church and state is a cruel and recent hoax.
Relativism and subjectivism, the only philosophical progeny of
empiricism create the illusion of reason and thought but have led
to our demise.  A return to "Objectivism" as reflected by
Aristotle, (true) Christianity and twenty centuries of Western
Culture is our only choice (salvation).  Direct persuasion through
education, involvement, coordination and community activism
(impact) is the best way for us to change the course of history and
reclaim America.

     If the forgoing is anywhere close to being true, it begs the
question of what can reasonable and tolerant people of good faith
do to counter this threat to our communal freedoms.  Three options
occur to me: ignore them, rebuke them, or engage them.

     Although I believe that if left alone, this movement will
eventually self-destruct, Focus has already grown to such
proportions that it is likely to seriously harm millions of others
before it collapses under the weight of its internal
inconsistencies.  Do we really want to allow Focus to usher in
another Dark Ages?  Although their arguments are internally
inconsistent and fundamentally illogical and their evidence is so
far below commonly accepted standards of truth, it has no claim to
call itself "research", Focus has learned to produce packages of
information sufficiently persuasive to win many converts.
Unfortunately, far too many of us have learned to let others do our
thinking for us.  The facile acceptance of simple solutions offered
by smiling, friendly faces may be preferred to reflective
examination and eventual understanding of the complex social
problems that plague us.  All that is needed for religious tyranny
to gain hold is for people who love liberty to look the other way.
Focus cannot be ignored.

     The next option is to rebuke them; to expose their conspiracy
and directly reveal their treachery to those they intend to
subvert.  Such a strategy might easily be overdone.  Although until
recently, I would have preferred this approach, I've changed my
mind (rearranged my prejudices).  Most of the people at Focus are
absolutely sincere in their beliefs.  This seems to be especially
true of the second-generation, thirty-something cadre below the
vice presidential level who provide the public face for Focus.
Their message is largely one of love and compassion and they are
committed to actually doing good deeds to reflect their faith
("witnessing").  Note, however, that adherence to neo-scholasticism
relieves them of responsibility for unintended negative social
consequences of their good intentions and allows them to ignore
evidence inconsistent with their Biblical assumptions.  By
selecting evidence on only one side of any argument, they create
the appearance of internal consistency and logic.  But as Erich
Fromm pointed out "Paranoid thinking is often characterized by the
fact that it can be completely logical yet lack any guidance by
concern of concrete inquiry into reality; in other words, such
logic does not exclude madness."

     Their intentional misrepresentation of groups they see
opposing their views (e.g., homosexuals and secular humanists) is
not seen by them as being unethical.  A booklet produced by Focus
entitled "The Homosexual Agenda" overflows with homophobic venom
and slanderous distortions.  Another example is contained in the
book, Children at Risk, by Dr Dobson and Gary Bauer.  In response
to a question about secular humanism the following are included in
a list of 25 items which make up "the family agenda of the left":
11. Expand the power of government and its bureaucracies to control
every vestige of private life... 12. Increase the tax burden on
families, forcing women into the work force and their children into
childcare facilities... 14. Repeal all laws relating to obscenity,
and even child pornography... 24. Fight tooth and nail to retain
the right to abortion on demand - up to the moment of birth - for
any reason whatsoever..."  Apparently it doesn't matter that these
statements are untrue or at least gross exaggerations, the only
relevant thing about information is the degree to which it is
consistent with their pre-existing beliefs (viz., "truth") about
humanists.  Rejecting empirical definitions of truth as well as
academic standards of evidence, allows Dr Dobson and the rest of
the folks at Focus to construct and believe in arguments based
entirely on anecdotes and isolated incidents.  Ignorance and evil
are not necessarily the same; we need to recognize that an
evangelical commitment to neo-scholasticism has left those on the
religious right both intellectually handicapped and tolerance
impaired.

     Another reason for avoiding a strategy of direct vilification
is that even if these were "bad" people, it would be almost
impossible to convince anyone else of the danger.  In public, Focus
folks are the epitome of cordial, concerned and responsible
citizens.  Any attempt at character assassination would almost
certainly backfire and destroy the credibility of their accusers.
For Focus the middle ground is the high ground and they've expended
a great deal of effort to purge their organization of "loose
canons", "lone rangers" and "Bible thumpers".  Their means are
entirely above board and they are committed to gradual and
(apparently) "reasonable" approaches to "positive" societal change.

     So we are left with engagement as the strategy of last resort.
As a result of the seminar I attended in November, 500 evangelical
canaries have been set loose in Colorado Springs.  They all have
the evangelical words and music as outlined above.  They will be
approaching others to win converts.  They are committed, confident,
well-equipped and well-connected.  But they are still only trained
canaries; they're unlikely to be able to sing a song they've not
been taught.  Sincere questions about the sources and logical
consequences of their beliefs may bring their Biblical bias out
into the open.  In some cases, however, we may even find ourselves
needing to agree with them: more comprehensive and inclusive sex
education programs may be better than those that exclude
discussions of the abstinence option; there are books that are not
suitable for elementary school libraries; and to pretend that
education is "value-free" seems an exercise in futility.  We must
acknowledge their social contributions and good works but also
vigorously resist those initiatives which threaten the freedoms of
members of our community.  We need to inform one another of
effective counter-arguments or obviously missing or misrepresented
aspects of their misguided pronouncements.  We need to learn about
their plans and activities and insist on a high level of integrity
by setting an example of openness and honesty.

     An incident near the end of my day with Focus provides a
sobering example of what we may be dealing with.  In his closing
remarks, John said something like: "We must ensure that no
individual, regardless of their sexual orientation is denied their
basic rights under the Constitution, but we must also insure that
homosexuality does not become the basis for special rights or
protected status."  This statement was met with thunderous applause
from the audience but John quickly reminded those present that if
they cheered for the second part they also must applaud the initial
statement.  He repeated "No one must ever be denied their
Constitutional rights because of their sexual orientation"; there
was a polite smattering of clapping.  John went on but I was lost
in thought.  Why had John made them applaud that statement?  Did he
really believe it was true?  Perhaps, but Constitutional rights for
the practice of homosexuality seemed inconsistent with the beliefs
I'd heard from many others on the religious right (including
Focus).  Some of these people have even expressed the view that
homosexuality is against God's law and thus a volitional (i.e.,
willful) wrong.  If homosexuality had a biological basis (as most
of the scientific evidence suggests) then God would be responsible
for creating sin which would truly be "unthinkable" in a scholastic
framework.  Perhaps John was simply a well-informed exception.  I
think not; Focus allows few exceptions; orthodoxy must be uniform.
Perhaps this was just another example of their commitment to employ
persuasive tactics.  I suspect John knew that many of the moderate
Christian neighbors who will ask about the seminar would not accept
the incarceration (or execution) of gays as called for by "high
octane" religious radicals.  John's a clever man; he knows that
such proposals would serve to weaken the credibility of Focus and
its supporters... at least for the time being.