[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             RECLAIMING CHRISTIANITY: A CALL FOR TOLERANCE

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, poll after poll shows that our Nation is 
among the most religious in the Western world. We Americans are a 
people of faith. The Senate and House open their daily sessions with a 
solemn prayer. Every American coin and bill is stamped with the 
national motto: ``In God we trust.''
  Likewise, we have a long and honored tradition of political activism 
by Americans of faith--citizens motivated by their religious beliefs to 
enter the political fray, to seek changes in our laws and in our 
society. This was the case with abolitionists in the decades prior to 
the Civil War. It was the case with those who committed themselves--who 
still commit themselves--to the struggle for civil rights. And it is 
the case today with many conservative Christians who seek to 
reinvigorate traditional American values.
  I respect conservative Christians, however strongly I may disagree 
with them on particular issues. In an era of rising crime, widespread 
drug abuse, and soaring rates of illegitimacy, it is ridiculous to say 
that Christians should stick to their churches and not step forward as 
a positive influence in the political arena.
  That said, I must also point out the danger of extremists in the 
midst of the conservative Christian community. These extremists--a 
small but highly visible minority--trade in a fundamentally un-
Christian brand of bigotry, intolerance and hatred. They stoop to 
character assassination. They arrogantly claim that God is on their 
side and that their political opponents are in league with Satan.
  Mr. President, in a July 8 editorial titled ``Reclaiming 
Christianity,'' the Atlanta Constitution speaks out forcefully against 
these extremists. The editorial is a plea for tolerance--which is 
surely among the most honored of Christian virtues.
  I rise to add my voice to that of the Atlanta Constitution. Let me 
state what ought to be obvious: That we can disagree without vilifying 
or demonizing our opponents; that God is not the exclusive property of 
any political or religious group; that there are millions of good 
Americans on the far right, on the far left and everywhere in between 
who have a profound and sincere faith in God.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Constitution 
editorial, ``Reclaiming Christianity,'' be printed in the Record.

             [From the Atlanta Constitution, July 8, 1994]

                        Reclaiming Christianity

       Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others are trying to steal 
     something that doesn't belong to them. They have hijacked and 
     profaned the word ``Christian,'' and it is time the term was 
     reclaimed from their grasping hands and restored to its full, 
     honorable meaning.
       The word ``Christian'' should not be used to divide 
     Americans one against the other. Nor should it be diminished 
     to a description of a narrow political ideology. A Christian 
     is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God, 
     and, defined properly, the word applies to people holding a 
     broad spectrum of political beliefs, from liberal to 
     conservative. There is no such thing as a Christian political 
     position.
       Nonetheless, groups such as Robertson's Christian Coalition 
     have attempted to steal the word and apply it only to 
     themselves and their conservative political agenda. According 
     to their definition, a Christian opposes abortion, gay rights 
     and the Clinton health plan, and supports prayer in schools, 
     school vouchers and the balanced-budget amendment. By 
     implication, any deviation from that list is a deviation from 
     biblical principles and the word of God.
       So, while Jimmy Carter may think of himself as a born-again 
     evangelical Christian, politically he is not ``Christian.'' 
     Bill Clinton is a Southern Baptist by upbringing and by 
     belief, but he is not ``Christian'' in a political sense. In 
     fact, Falwell, Robertson and others would deny the president 
     is Christian in any sense, usurping for themselves God's 
     authority to peer into the man's soul and judge him.
       The arrogance of such an act is astounding but typical. 
     Those who believe themselves to be the infallible 
     interpreters of God's word, particularly as it applies to 
     political issues, apparently feel little cause to feign 
     humility. And the most troubling expression of 
     their arrogance is the intolerance it breeds for the 
     opinions of others.
       Tolerance is born of the understanding that none of us is 
     infallible. Christian tolerance is born of the understanding 
     that while God and his message may be infallible, no one 
     (except, in Catholic theology, the pope) is infallible in 
     interpreting that message.
       In a political setting, once a position is defined as God's 
     position, compromise and debate become impossible. How is it 
     possible to compromise God's position? It is not. And once 
     God has spoken, what is there left to debate? Nothing. What 
     once might have been a calm political discussion instead 
     becomes a battle between believers and non-believers, in 
     which compromise is ruled out and utter defeat or victory the 
     only possible outcome.
       That is not democracy. It's religious warfare.
       Democracy requires that we enter the political arena 
     allowing at least the tiny possibility that we could be 
     wrong, and that the other side might have a point. That 
     kernel of doubt allows us to respect other points of view. It 
     allows us to compromise. Most important, it allows us to 
     accept as legitimate decisions that we ourselves believe to 
     be wrong.
       Without the seed of doubt from which tolerance springs, we 
     are left with the attitude expressed by the Christian 
     Coalition, which dismissed the inauguration of Clinton as 
     illegitimate and ``a repudiation of our forefathers' covenant 
     with God.''
       Such a sentiment is profoundly antidemocratic, and it 
     demonstrates anew why our forefathers were so wary of mixing 
     religion and government. They knew that a government 
     influenced by religious beliefs is a good thing, but a 
     government dictated by a religious belief is something else 
     entirely.

                          ____________________