Manhattan Declaration Is The New Old Culture War
By Sarah Posner
November 23, 2009
  • 8 Comments
  • Print

The not-so-new ecumenism of the religious right: stoking fears of secularism as the new Nazism.

It's hard to discern whether the recently unveiled Manhattan Declaration is an act of desperation or hubris: are its promoters' backs up against the wall, their fundamentalism mockingly rejected by a culture increasingly weary of bombastic theocrats? Or is it a sign that they are emboldened by their balance-tipping abilities, as exemplified by the Catholic Church's pivotal role in forcing House Democrats to include the restrictive Stupak-Pitts anti-abortion amendment in their health care bill?

The Manhattan Declaration is billed as "A Call of Christian Conscience," drafted and signed by Catholics, evangelicals, and Orthodox Christians, an "ecumenism" celebrated by its promoters as evidence of its far-reaching appeal. The document targets reproductive freedom (enemy of the "sanctity of life") and LGBTQ equality (enemy of the "dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife") as foes of Christians' religious freedom. It's a new document but an old canard. And it's proof that the culture wars are not only not over; there hasn't even been a truce.

The Declaration's drafters and signatories view it as an act of "conscience" and religious devotion, not politics, yet they threaten unspecified civil disobedience if the law fails to yield to their theocratic fantasies. But if the document is so disassociated from current political events, why did it need to hit the streets with a splash at the National Press Club? The festivities took place just steps away from where the D.C. City Council was considering gay marriage legislation subject to threats from the Archdiocese of Washington, and where the Senate was poised to break a threatened filibuster of floor debate on its health care bill, which the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called "the worst bill we've seen so far on the life issues."

The Manhattan Declaration assumes that in a country with constitutionally protected religious liberty, any law intended to protect the citizenry's other freedoms should be subject to the veto threat of the signers of the Manhattan Declaration itself. This is not a new strategy for the religious right. Since the 1970s the Hyde Amendment has "protected" the "conscience" of people who find abortion morally objectionable and don't want tax dollars paying for someone else's (although many of those people of "conscience" also oppose war but have barely lifted a finger to stop us from paying for the killing of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan). Religious right legal groups have used the courts to try to dismantle the separation of church and state on similar grounds, claiming that everything from LGBTQ equality to prohibitions on the public display of the Ten Commandments infringes on their religious liberty as Christians.

The Declaration no doubt seeks to capitalize on the current Obama/secularism-as-Nazism mania that pervades the fantasies of Glenn Beck and the tea party movement. Watergate felon-turned prison evangelist Chuck Colson, who was present at the press club for the unveiling, released a video just before the event in which he recommended reading Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, which he called "prophetic in its application to today. . . . The destruction of civil society has always been prelude to a totalitarian government." Indeed the Declaration harkens not only to Hitler, but to "intellectuals" and "elites" who supposedly share his genocidal ambitions:

Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben ("life unworthy of life") were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid 20th century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of "liberty," "autonomy," and "choice."

These Manhattan-ites (so distinct from the island of the same name whose sexual license they no doubt fear) believe in a "one-flesh union as husband and wife," the "crowning achievement of God's creation." But those dreaded one-flesh unions between men and men or women and women are not the only enemies of God's creation for these Manhattan-ites. Sex before marriage -- which as we all know nobody engages in! -- is another perpetrator of "social pathologies of every sort." Princeton's Robert George, who emceed the affair, seemed downright obsessed with the specter of what he called "polyamorous relationships," repeating those words as if a mantra against those imaginary man-on-dog-on-barnyard-animal threesomes Republican luminaries have warned us about. (George is also the founder of the American Principles Project, which opposes the appointment of LGBTQ people to positions in government.)

The real question, though, is not whether the culture wars are "dead," as so many would have it; clearly they are not. (As I write this, over 37,000 people have signed the Manhattan Declaration.) As evidenced by many of its signatories, who claimed to sign on behalf of themselves but not their organizations, the Manhattan Declaration is representative of the thinking of the Catholic Church and mainstream evangelicalism. Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action, and once touted as a representative of that "broader agenda" that includes issues beyond the culture wars, announced his support for the Declaration by noting that he is a registered Democrat. (To his credit, David Gushee, the Mercer University professor also part of that "centrist" group, told me he would not sign the Declaration.)

If the Manhattan Declaration is anathema to the prophets who proclaim the end of the culture wars, and who claim to be the great religious hope of the Democratic Party, they need to stop fighting the war themselves. That would mean that abortion coverage in health care reform is of no consequence; the bill should pass in order to cover the tens of millions of Americans who lack it. That would mean that gay marriage laws get passed not only unchallenged by the so-called centrists but supported by them, so that LGBTQ people (God's children?) are no longer relegated to second-class citizenship. Anything less than that from the prophets of the end of the culture wars means that they are fighting them, or at the very least throwing fuel on the fire, along with the culture warriors they claim to reject.

Tags: abortion, lgbt, manhattan declaration, marriage, religious right

Comments
View:
Turn comments off sitewide
The Manhattan Declaration contains lies!

Among other things the Declararion claims that the "gay marriage" movement would force them to perform gay marriages against their will. Sadly, however, this is not what anyone is working toward. In my home state of Connecticut, which has permitted gay marriage for about a year now, no Catholic priest (for example) can be coerced to marry gays. It's not only unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court decision which allowed for gay marriage, explicitly says that religious groups cannot be forced to perform gay marriages if they don't wish to.

It's yet another example of how the "culture wars" are predicated on straw men, which in turn, can only be called "lies." I wonder what it is that makes these religious leaders believe they are entitled to lie? Where does this entitlement come from? Is it somehow part of their doctrines? Or is it just a side-effect of their own sanctimonious outrage ... i.e. they are so angry about what they see as happening in the country, that they lie without even being aware of it?

More to the point, when is someone going to hold their feet to the fire (as the cliche goes) and call them to account for their lies? I see this Declaration being reported in the mass media, but I don't see anyone questioning them about its deceptive content. Why are they being given a "free pass" to lie and not be held responsible for doing so?

Amen

I wish I had said what you wrote. I am certain that I will borrow what you wrote. Thank you.

SBC's Richard Land

I hope Ms. Posner and others monitoring these comments will look at Robert Parham's sterling comments on same at www.ethicsdaily.com
Sarah Palin and SBC's Richard Land is key faultline in this matter.
And some exploration of Steven Miller's thoughts on Palin's visit with Billy Graham couldn't but help advance this discussion.

Manhattan Declaration

Sarah Posner's column was very much to the point. Check my piece in tomorrow's www.ethicsdaily.com where I go after this and other examples of outrageous and disgusting behavior by people who claim to be Christians.

How it is playing in Baptist world

In addition to Pierard and Parham, great discussion here with links to at least three thoughtful conservative bloggers on why they did not sign.
Good deal of discussion about Timothy George who invoked MLKing's name as George now shares Birmingham as home.
It was George's infamous 93 abortion pamphlet where he said folks who were not with him and Francis Schaeffer in effect were comparable to the Compromising Church Bonhoeffer opposed in Hitler's Germany.
He to this date has never spokenabout the compromising church in South Carolina in the 2000 Primary and then in the SBC that led to the election of Bush 43.
My resistance in Sunday School to his abortion pamphlet and the weighty SBC politics it baggaged; was a key component that led to me being voted off the grounds of a church in Alabama where my Mother was baptized and my family goes back to 1845.
AS in the SBC, Mohler, George and others though they would shout otherwise on occasion, unlike Bonhoeffer, are an outrage to dissent out of conviction of conscience.
They mock the key Baptist distinction of the priesthood of the believer; then again Baptist went through that at the macro level in San Antonion in 1988 with Resolution Number Five that Harold Bloom among others found laughable.

http://forums.baptistlife.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7794

End of culture wars

Be patient--this is one of the last battles of culture wars. It may not look that way yet but demographically the Evangelical/Catholic/Orthodox social conservatives are losing their campaign against modernity.

In the US Catholic Church for example you see a population exchange: while statistically they're holding their own at 22-24% of the population, that's the result of a population exchange: educated upper middle class Anglos dropping out as fast as Hispanic immigrants are filling the ranks. Some evangelicals are already predicting the collapse of evangelical Christianity

Increasingly, these conservative organizations represent the marginalized--people in the Global South, immigrants and the lower classes--who will eventually join the mainstream. Modernity is inevitable.

RE: nd of culture wars

Well said whodat. They have no clue who they are up against.

RE: nd of culture wars

The biggest problem isn't God, it is people who define God as intolerant. They will be overcome, as they have been overcome so many times in the past ("God has no problem with slavery", "God doesn't want women to vote", "God does not want blacks and whites to marry").

Login / Signup Join the conversation

Comments closed

The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.