"In my twelve Senate years I worked with many of the 'Religious Right.' T= hey were active in the cause of Soviet Jewry (many Pentecostals and other Chr= istians couldn't leave the Soviet Union either). They were fervent supporters= of the State of Israel and we worked together often. Among the leadership of= Conservative Christians I never experienced even a hint of anti-Semitism. In= deed, it was quite the opposite-I am Honorary Vice-Chairman of the ADL. I am = proud of that-But in this instance I strongly disagree. From all my experienc= e I know their report to be ill-founded. Regretably it will do more harm than= good."
Introduction
On June 9, 1994, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, an organizati= on created to fight defamation, released a report that alleges - with shoddy = research and threadbare scholarship - that politically active people of faith= pose a threat to the survival of American constitutional democracy. The ADL = accuses numerous religious conservative organizations and leaders of anti-Sem= itism and bigotry. In so doing, the ADL itself has committed defamation. The = ADL's new definition of "intolerance" apparently is disagreement with its lib= eral politics.
The ADL report is filled with fabrications, half-truths, in= nuendo and guilt by association that are reminiscent of the political style p= racticed by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.
Persons of impeccable character and reputation are smeared for dubious rea= sons or for no reason at all. This style of politics is beneath the dignity o= f any organization that claims to be dedicated to fighting bigotry.
The response to the ADL report has been dismay from Jews and Christians al= ike. "Politically active Christians, the ADL concludes, are-well, 'extremist,= ' 'bogus,' 'conspiratorial,' 'fevered,' 'phony,'...and yes, 'fervent.' Protes= tant evangelicals are simply de trop, an object of condescension and prejudic= e," observed William Kristol, former chief of staff to Vice President Dan Qua= yle. (3)
Columnist Don Feder of the Boston Herald calls the report "an attempted po= litical assassination." Feder adds, "Instead of debating the issues like a ge= ntleman, it stoops to implications of anti-Semitism to discredit a legitimate= voice in the values debate." (4)
Beth Gilinsky of the Jewish Action Alliance calls the ADL report "a plainl= y partisan smear campaign against traditional Christians who energetically - = and quite legitimately - advocate what they believe are important moral and = social values." She concludes that although "Jewish-Christian friendship will= survive the onslaught from the ADL, we are getting rather tired sweeping up = after repeated ADL fiascos." (5)
This report specifically addresses those portions of the ADL document conc= erning the Christian Coalition. First, we will briefly examine the shoddy nat= ure of the ADL's pseudo-research, and the report's heavy reliance on sources = of questionable veracity. Second, we will discuss how the Christian Coalition= really operates and discuss our true agenda of pluralistic democracy, nonpar= tisanship and inclusion. We also will discuss in detail the Coalition's nonpa= rtisan voter guides and organizational structure and purposes.
The ADL's Pseudo-Research
The ADL claims its report was the culmination of nine months of research, = but it bears none of the signs of a serious research report. It is virtually = devoid of specific references to resource materials. (6) The reader = is left to simply take it on faith that the ADL's most damning charges are tr= ue, which they are not. In fact, much of the ADL's report is simply a retread= of materials (some over a decade old) from groups like People for the Americ= an Way, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the Institut= e for First Amendment Studies and other groups that long have had political a= xes to grind against religious conservatives. (7) Most disturbing, t= he ADL never contacted the Christian Coalition to get its response to their u= nfounded charges, nor did the ADL try to ascertain the accuracy of many of th= e quotations used in their report. This is particularly disturbing considerin= g the fact that many of the groups and persons attacked have been! longstanding friends of the Jewish community, the State of Israel and the A= DL.
In 1993, in seeking to settle charges that it had violated the privacy of = certain individuals, the ADL sought to avoid legal liability by claiming that= it enjoyed "journalistic status," making it "similar to any newspaper, magaz= ine, or television station." (8) If so, then the ADL has violated eve= n the most basic principles of ethical journalism.
Had the Christian Coalition or its leadership been contacted for clarifica= tion, many of the errors in the report would have been corrected. Instead, th= e report is filled with gross inaccuracies of fact. Quotations are listed wit= hout attribution, while others are listed (incredibly) as coming from the "li= brary of People for the American Way." A quotation from Pat Robertson on chur= ch-state separation has no source listed at all. (9) Of 28 quotations= attributed to Paul Weyrich, founder of the Washington-based Free Congress Fo= undation, 22 have no source for the quote. (10)
Numerous Factual Errors
Basic biographical errors abound. For instance, the ADL report says that C= hristian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed, Jr. once worked as a "campa= ign staffer for Georgia Rep. Newt Gingrich, former Georgia State Sen. Mack Ma= ttingly and Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina." (11) Reed never has b= een employed on the campaign staffs of any of these individuals. He never was= employed by Rep. Newt Gingrich in any capacity. He worked for Students For A= merica, an independent organization, during the 1984 Senate race in North Car= olina. He has never been employed by Senator Jesse Helms. He served as an int= ern for Mack Mattingly in the U.S. Senate in the summer of 1981. Mattingly wa= s a U.S. Senator, not a state Senator, from Georgia.
Reed never made the comment attributed to him by the ADL calling for "a co= untry once again governed by Christians-'."(12) Indeed, when asked on = the NBC Meet the Press program in 1992 whether he believed America was a "Chr= istian nation," Reed disagreed. "I think the only difference that I would hav= e with it is - and I should probably preface this by telling you that I began= my political career as the executive director of the first Jewish national c= hairman of the College Republicans in the history of the Republican party - I= do think that you have to acknowledge the role that Jews have played and wil= l continue to play, and I think there's a commonality among Jews and Christia= ns on a lot of issues because again, ultimately it's a faith that I think has= a lot of common values."(13)
It is not as though adequate documentation of Dr. Reed's views was unavail= able to the ADL. As recently as February of this year, the New York Times new= s service carried an extensive profile that noted, "At the same time, the coa= lition is making overtures to minorities and Jewish leaders, hoping to bring = some diversity to what has so far been a remarkably homogeneous movement." Ar= thur Kropp of People for the American Way added, "I disagree with [Reed] whol= eheartedly, but I don't detect a mean spiritedness in him that you detect in = other leaders. There's a political astuteness, perseverance, and intelligence= ."(14)
The ADL also misspells the name of the Coalition's Director of Legislative= Affairs, Marshall Wittmann. This could not have been a typographical error, = as Wittmann's name appears incorrectly spelled throughout the report. Cursory= fact-checking should have caught this error. (15)
So poorly researched is the report that views attributed to columnist Robe= rt Novak are based on a quotation so badly lifted out of context that its mea= ning is distorted. In arguing that a "grim" Paul Weyrich, a Washington pro-fa= mily strategist, is somehow tied to anti-Semitic individuals, the report quot= es Novak as saying, "I am supposed to be the Prince of Darkness, but Paul's t= he only person who's so tough that he gets hate mail from Mother Theresa."= (16) This statement was made by Mr. Novak at a roast in Weyrich's honor h= eld in Washington, DC, on April 1, 1991. Clearly, the remark is offered in je= st - but it is lifted out of its proper context by the ADL to distort the tru= e meaning.(17)
Reckless Charges of Anti-Semitism
The ADL report repeatedly suggests that leaders and organizations in the p= ro-family movement are guilty of anti-Semitism.
Stung by criticism from within the Jewish community, the ADL is backpedali= ng, and now denies making the accusation. For example, in a response to an ea= rlier Christian Coalition correction of its many factual errors, the ADL weak= ly claimed, "the ADL does not call the Christian Coalition or any other relig= ious right organization anti-Semitic." (18)
Has the ADL not read its own report? It alleges that "movement leaders hav=
e demonstrated a disturbing insensitivity to Jews and Jewish concerns" (p. 2)=
, that its agenda expresses "anti-Jewish and extremist sentiments" (p. 2), th=
at its leaders make "public anti-Jewish pronouncements" (p. 21), that its rhe=
toric is "reminiscent of traditional anti-Semitic thinking" (p. 22), that its=
literature is peppered with "anti- Jewish nuggets" (p. 24), that its leaders=
have "issued a number of pronouncements antagonistic toward Jews" (p. 42), t=
hat the movement has been "tolerant of anti-Semitism" (p. 42), that its publi=
cations echo "evangelical anti-Judaism" (p. 43), and that its groups conspire=
with "the nation's leading anti-Semitic propaganda organization" (p. 97). Had the ADL simply contacted the Christian Coalition and other groups defa=
med by the report, extensive documentation could have been provided to demons=
trate our wholehearted and steadfast opposition to anti-Semitism and bigotry.=
=20
In January 1994, Pat Robertson received the highest honor of the Christian=
s' Israel Public Action Campaign at a Jewish-Christian solidarity rally in Wa=
shington, DC. At the awards ceremony, Robertson stated, "Those of us who are =
evangelicals say to those of you who are Jewish, we are your friends. We stan=
d with you and however easy it is, or however difficult it is, you can count =
on us as your friends, your supporters and your compatriots in a struggle to =
bring forth the fulfillment of that prophecy, and to make this a better world=
for all of us to live in." (20)
Robertson also told the Los Angeles Times in 1993, "I am convinced on the =
political scene that the evangelical churches, the Catholic churches, the Ort=
hodox Jewish people, all of us, will work together." Ralph Reed was quoted in=
the same story as saying, "We're working very closely with various conservat=
ive and orthodox rabbis to try to build a friendship and cooperation across t=
heological lines on family and moral issues." (21)
Robertson has been a major contributor to the United Jewish Appeal, has do=
nated large sums to Jewish charities in Jerusalem, and visited the ADL office=
s in 1985 to meet with its board of directors. At that meeting, Robertson hel=
d hands with then-executive director Nathan Perlmutter and the entire board o=
f directors and the group prayed together for an end to anti-Semitism and int=
olerance in America. Those present at the meeting report that many were moved=
to tears.
In January 1994, Ralph Reed visited Israel on a tour sponsored by the Jeru=
salem Post. He met with former Prime Minister Yitzak Shamir, members of the K=
nesset, government officials, and the mayor of Jerusalem. Reed's trip was und=
ertaken with the assistance of Jewish leaders in the United States to undersc=
ore the Christian Coalition's steadfast support for Israel and Jewish concern=
s. (22)
One of the most disturbing aspects of the ADL's report is its propensity t=
o lift words out of context so as to distort their original meaning. It does =
so with reference to the irresponsible charge of anti-Semitism.
Citing an editorial in the Christian American newspaper, the ADL argues th=
at the Christian Coalition believes that "Jews 'both killed the Lord Jesus an=
d their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and ar=
e contrary to all men' (1 Thessalonians 2:15)." The ADL dismissively acknowle=
dges that this quotation from the New Testament appeared in an editorial deno=
uncing anti-Semitism, but refers to it as "typical of evangelical anti-Judais=
m." (23)
In fact, the editorial (titled "Anti-Semitism in the Church") cited the ab=
ove-mentioned verse from the Bible as an example of Scripture twisted by anti=
-Semites in the past to justify their bigotry. The editorial went on to say t=
hat "the place of the Church is to restore, not to condemn." The column concl=
udes, "Our editorial position has been and remains clear, consistent, and Bib=
lical: we support the State of Israel and we oppose anti-Semitism." (24)
In the same issue of Christian American, another statement condemned bigot=
ry against Jews. "Anti-Semitism is a serious and dangerous thing to take root=
and grow. Please do not give aid to this monster, and allow it to grow any f=
urther." (25)
Many in the Jewish community have reacted with disbelief to the ADL's assa=
ult on Christian leaders who have been among their best friends in the United=
States. Midge Decter and Elliot Abrams both have begun efforts to refute the=
biased report by the ADL through newspaper advertisements. Former U.S. Senat=
or Rudy Boschwitz, an honorary vice-chairman of the ADL, has written a letter=
distancing himself from the report. "In my 12 Senate years, I worked with ma=
ny of the 'Religious Right.' They were very active in the cause of Soviet Jew=
ry (many Pentecostals and other Christians couldn't leave the Soviet Union ei=
ther). They were fervent supporters of the State of Israel, and we worked tog=
ether often. Among the leadership of conservative Christians I never experien=
ced even a hint of anti-Semitism. Indeed, it was quite the opposite-I am hono=
rary vice-chairman of the ADL. I am proud of that-but in this instance I stro=
ngly disagree. From all my experience I know their report to be i!
ll-founded. Regretably it will do more harm than good." (26)
Marshall Breger of the Heritage Foundation has noted that the report "infe=
rred that the religious right is anti-Semitic, and I don't see how you can ma=
ke that claim on the record." Marshall Wittmann, director of legislative affa=
irs at the Christian Coalition, says, "This [report] was liberalism and not J=
udaism speaking." He adds, "It's quite ironic that the ADL, despite all the v=
arious anti-Semites out there, would go after people for their political view=
s." (27) Wittmann, who has traveled extensively speaking to Christian =
Coalition seminars nationwide, recounts that he has "never encountered a whif=
f of anti-Semitism" among its members. (28)
"The greatest friends the State of Israel has in America are the Christian=
conservatives," said Herbert Zweibon, chairman of Americans for a Safe Israe=
l. "And [the ADL] is telling this community to get lost?" Zweibon added that =
the ADL, founded in 1913 to combat anti-Semitism, had "gone off track" and "a=
dopted a liberal political agenda that has nothing to do with its mission." T=
he ADL, he concluded, "does not represent the views of most American Jews." The ADL frequently resorts to the very same kinds of guilt-by-association =
lines of argument patented by virulent anti-Semites. One of the most egregiou=
s examples occurs in its allegation that Pat Robertson and Christian Coalitio=
n board member Billy McCormack gave aid and support to former klansman and ne=
o-Nazi David Duke's Louisiana senatorial bid in 1990 and his gubernatorial bi=
d in 1991. The allegation is not true.
The report says McCormack helped to table a 1990 censure motion against Du=
ke in the Louisiana Republican Central Committee, implying that McCormack sup=
ported Duke's racist views. (30) This is inaccurate.=20
Rhett Davis, who served as Congressman Clyde Holloway's campaign coordinat=
or in the 1991 gubernatorial campaign, says the following about McCormack's r=
ole:=20
"Months before Congressman Holloway formally announced his candidacy (thou=
gh David Duke had already announced), Mr. Billy McCormack of Shreveport conta=
cted me on numerous occasions expressing his strong feeling that we needed to=
convince Congressman Holloway to run because no other candidate was acceptab=
le- .=20
Mr. McCormack and his friends statewide began a concentrated effort to hel=
p our campaign. Mr. McCormack was very effective, and ultimately provided the=
margin of victory for Holloway at the Republican State Convention." (31)<=
/i>
Davis also noted that McCormack brought Robertson to Louisiana to campaign=
against Duke in October 1991, and Robertson appeared in Baton Rouge, Lake Ch=
arles, and Shreveport at fundraisers for Holloway. (The trip was paid for by =
the Holloway for Governor campaign and Robertson appeared in his capacity as =
a private citizen.)
"Additionally," Davis continued, "please note that the effort to kill a mo=
ve to censure Duke-was actually led by the anti-Duke forces, fearing such a m=
ove would not hurt him, and might indeed backfire like other, similar moves."=
(32) Other press accounts have similarly noted that the resolution w=
as tabled to "deprive Duke of additional publicity." (33)
In November 1991, after Clyde Holloway (the favored candidate of religious=
conservatives) failed to make the run-off election for Governor, pro-family =
activists faced a dilemma. Edwards was an advocate of legalized gambling, lib=
eralized pornography laws, and abortion. Duke - though conservative on these =
issues - held anti-Semitic and racist views that are anathema to religious co=
nservatives.
How did religious conservatives react to this dilemma? In the ADL's green-=
spectacled fantasy, "Robertson displayed indifference to Duke's racist record=
, despite the fact that the national Republican Party-had repudiated and cond=
emned the arch-bigot more than a year earlier." The ADL report gravely intone=
s that Robertson "never denounced Duke during Duke's subsequent Louisiana gub=
ernatorial bid- ." (34) That is an irresponsible statement for which =
the ADL should issue a retraction and an apology.
On November 13, 1991, Robertson denounced Duke on his 700 Club program bef=
ore the run-off between Edwards and Duke. His words were unambiguous:=20
"You don't get converted one day and run for governor the next. And especi=
ally the fact that there was apparently a falsehood about his-service- it doe=
s not exist, apparently. And furthermore, he claims to be a member of a churc=
h that doesn't exist as well. There are a few little inconsistencies. Plus th=
ere's some really bad stuff in his background- . And it's very dangerous in A=
merica to foster hate, and racial hatred, hatred of Jews, bigotry - that kind=
of thing. It is something we just don't need in this country." (35)
Duke lost a campaign which he had led in many polls just weeks prior to th=
e election. Many observers noted that Robertson's statement - strategically t=
imed a few days before the run-off for maximum impact - might have made the d=
ifference by depressing Duke's support among white evangelical voters. Many o=
ther organizations and leaders adopted a more low-profile tactic in opposing =
Duke. (36) But Robertson boldly and publicly spoke out. Instead of pr=
aising Robertson for being the most prominent evangelical Christian figure in=
America to denounce Duke and prevent his election, the ADL smeared him with =
a falsehood.
The ADL is obsessed with the notion that Christian conservatives engage in=
so-called "stealth" activities that disguise their agenda. It relies heavily=
on bizarre theories like those propagated by People for the American Way and=
Skipp Porteous, a Massachusetts-based conspiracist-cum-propagandist who spec=
ializes in spreading falsehoodsand innuendo about religious conservatives.
By combining forces with paranoid conspiracists on the left, the ADL sugge=
sts that the distribution of nonpartisan voter guides by Christian organizati=
ons amounts to a subversion of democracy. The report asserts that "the policy=
of Robertson's Christian Coalition has often been to hide its election activ=
ity." (37) It falsely claims that the Coalition "acknowledges having=
used [stealth tactics]." It compares volunteers in churches who educate vote=
rs with "Tammany's ward heelers and the old Democratic machine in Chicago." The ADL report asserts, "The Coalition participated in the ground-breaking=
November 1990 elections in San Diego County in which 60 of 88 candidates ass=
ociated with religious right groups were elected to office - an event that ca=
me to be known among the religious right and its critics as the 'San Diego mo=
del.' " (39)
This statement is false. The Christian Coalition played no part in the 199=
0 San Diego school board elections. At the time, the Coalition barely had bee=
n in existence a year. It had no state affiliate in California and no chapter=
in the San Diego area. The Coalition neither practices nor endorses the "ste=
alth tactics" the ADL claims.
Contacted by the Los Angeles Times after the election, Ralph Reed of the C=
hristian Coalition made it clear that his organization had nothing to do with=
the campaign. He noted that while the tendency of candidates to campaign in =
churches might have been an effective strategy, it probably would backfire if=
the candidates had not gained broad support for their views in the electorat=
e.
Reed made these remarks in his capacity as a political analyst. He did not=
condone, endorse, or participate in the strategy. The Times misquoted Dr. Re=
ed, a fact that the ADL could have discovered with a more thorough search of =
newspaper accounts on the subject. (40)
If the 1990 San Diego School Board races are a "model," as the ADL alleges=
, what were they a model for? The fact is that this strategy failed in San Di=
ego - many of the candidates who used them were defeated in 1992 - and it nev=
er has been replicated again.
The ADL report fails to mention a single other community in the nation whe=
re the strategy has been used. It alludes to an undocumented charge by Skipp =
Porteous that such a strategy was undertaken in Williamsville, New York, but =
provides no evidence and names not one candidate who employed them. (41) In fact, the incident in Williamsville never happened. Jeff Baran, executi=
ve director of the Christian Coalition in New York, made this clear. "I can a=
ssure you that, while I have had a few conversations with Porteous in the pas=
t, none have ever contained talk of running candidates of any kind, let alone=
'stealth' candidates. As is our policy, we have not engaged in partisan poli=
tics in Williamsville or anywhere in New York- ."(42) Apparently San =
Diego was not a "model" at all, just a threadbare scare tactic whipped up by =
conspiracy theorists like Skipp Porteous and People for the American Way.
The ADL seeks to tar the name of Christian Coalition by finding the organi=
zation guilty of commiting democracy. Through nonpartisan voter education eff=
orts, Christian Coalition informs voters where candidates stand on a broad r=
ange of issues, and encourages voters to go to the polls and cast their ballo=
ts for the candidate of their choice. =09
Christian Coalition leaders have repeatedly disavowed so-called "stealth t=
actics." They always have been accessible to the press, open to the public, a=
nd have pursued a policy of honesty and rectitude in their voter education ac=
tivities.
Ralph Reed told the Washington Times, "We don't encourage in any way peopl=
e to run for office at any level and misrepresent their position on any issue=
. We believe pro-family candidates should run unapologetically on who they ar=
e and what they believe because the public shares their viewpoint." (43)
In an appearance on CNN's Crossfire, Reed specifically denounced the so-ca=
lled stealth strategy:
Reed: We're working on behalf of choice in education.We're working=
to increase the standard deduction for children. We're working to decrease t=
he tax burden on the American family. It's a mainstream agenda for a mainstre=
am America. Eighty percent of the American people want prayer in school, 75 p=
ercent are opposed to abortion as a form of birth control, and two out of thr=
ee want choice in education.
Sununu: Ralph, let me ask you this. If those statistics are valid,=
and I think they are, then why-the stealth candidate strategy that you're ge=
tting criticized about?
Reed: We don't, John. We don't encourage that. We don't teach it. =
We don't promote it. What we think is that, because our values are held by th=
e vast majority of Americans, go out there and articulate what you stand for,=
and you'll draw the people to you. That's what Ronald Reagan did, and that's=
what we want to do. (44)
Coalition founder Pat Robertson has been equally clear: "People can say an=
ything they want to, but it's not the policy of the Christian Coalition natio=
nally to hide anything. We want to bring out the truth, not hide it. We want =
to know what people stand for." (45)
"We do not advocate electing officials by depressing voter turnout or taki=
ng advantage of historically low voter participation. Some have inaccurately =
charged that religious conservatives hide their religious affiliation, conduc=
ting "stealth" campaigns in which they eschew public forums and campaign excl=
usively in churches. The opposite is true. The Christian Coalition, for examp=
le, distributes millions of nonpartisan voter guides that inform voters on wh=
ere all the candidates stand- .We want a more open airing of who the candidat=
es are and what they believe. Pro-family candidates win at the ballot box bec=
ause of their views, not in spite of them. They are elected precisely because=
of who they are and what they believe." (46)
If the ADL was looking for the real model of Christian Coalition activity,=
it would turn to the place where ADL's headquarters is located: New York Cit=
y. In 1993, Queens school board member Mary Cummins led a protest movement ag=
ainst then-New York City School Chancellor Joseph Fernandez' imposition of th=
e "Rainbow Curriculum," a multi-cultural course that included instruction on =
the gay lifestyle to students as young as six years old.
A local Christian Coalition chapter was organized, coincidentally, about t=
he same time Cummins raised her voice. The Coalition's New York City coordina=
tor made contact with Cummins, and over the next two months the Coalition, in=
cooperation with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, The Congress Of=
Racial Equality (CORE), The National Committee For the Furtherance of Jewish=
Education, and the Family Defense Council, supported her reform efforts by d=
istributing 550,000 nonpartisan voter guides in 1,300 churches and synagogues.
Catholics, Hispanics and Jews joined the Christian Coalition to distribute=
more than 500,000 nonpartisan voter guides prior to the New York City School=
Board races. In addition to church and synagogue distribution, Christian Coa=
lition voter guides were passed out at union halls, polling places and family=
events. The guides informed voters where 540 school board candidates stood o=
n a broad range of issues, including school choice, voluntary prayer, merit p=
ay for teachers and parental rights. The guides endorsed no candidates and we=
re used for voter education. In a far-reaching show of support, Cardinal John=
O'Connor allowed the distribution of voter guides in 300 Catholic churches, =
a move that opened the door to ongoing Catholic/evangelical cooperation.
As a result of Christian Coalition's voter education campaign, voter turno=
ut reached the highest level in 20 years. Approximately 450,000 voters went t=
o the polls, and 60 percent of 130 pro-family candidates won election. Ten ci=
ty school boards had solid pro-family majorities. Among the new board members=
: Linda Garcia, a Hispanic mother who won election in Manhattan's Lower East =
Side. Cummins and her allies were re-elected in Brooklyn. Fernandez was remov=
ed from his post. (47)
The Coalition's efforts in New York were the subject of ongoing press cove=
rage from the beginning, and virtually every significant development was repo=
rted in detail. The Coalition held numerous news conferences in New York duri=
ng the campaign to announce its activities. Indeed, when the New York Times a=
nd the New York Post listed which candidates they preferred in the contests, =
they did so based on information derived from the Coalition's well-documented=
voter guide. (48) So much for "stealth."
Reed told the New York Times during the campaign: "We're simply encouragin=
g people of faith, of all religious traditions, including people of the Jewis=
h and Roman Catholic faiths, to be informed voters." (49)
Seeking more fodder for its conspiracy grist mill, the ADL repeats the tir=
ed and false accusation that the "1992 Pennsylvania Christian Coalition's 'Co=
unty Action Plan' directed" members to "never mention the name Christian Coal=
ition in Republican circles." (50)
To state the obvious, Christian Coalition's activities within the GOP are =
a matter of public knowledge, especially given extensive news coverage of the=
last several years. With Democratic consultant Bob Beckel calling politicall=
y active evangelicals "Nazis," Mark Shields referring to them as the "America=
n equivalent of Shiite Muslims," and Jocelyn Elders attacking them, it is dif=
ficult to see how the ADL can think that anyone is unaware of Christian invol=
vement in the Republican party.
In fact, the manual the ADL cites does not exist. The "County Action Plan"=
was a draft prepared by a local volunteer. It was submitted to the national =
office and rejected as inconsistent with the Coalition's policy of openness a=
nd inclusion.
As Ralph Reed directed in a letter on October 7, 1992, to the executive di=
rector of the Pennsylvania chapter:
"There are several problems with the manual-It directs Christian Coalition=
members not to mention their affiliation with the Christian Coalition in par=
ty circles. That is not our policy- .This manual, in its current form, does n=
ot have the authorization or imprimatur of the Christian Coalition. Please re=
trieve all copies- ." (51)
The ADL need only have contacted the Christian Coalition and its staff wou=
ld have gladly provided a copy of the letter. As it is, the ADL has repeated =
a false allegation about a manual that does not exist. In fact, the ADL barel=
y mentions the legitimate and extensive Christian Coalition training material=
s, such as its 256-page Leadership Manual, which states the official policy o=
f the organization.
Indeed, the Leadership Manual clearly urges pro-family citizens to be ope=
n, honest and up front about their views and beliefs:
"First, do not limit your campaign to just churches and the Christian comm=
unity. As a supporter of family values, your positions on issues affecting th=
e family are the same as a majority of the voting public. Do not be shy in de=
claring that your stands on the issues are based on principle- ."
"Do not use so-called 'stealth' tactics. In the past, some candidates have=
focused their campaigns on the churches and have not reached out to the gene=
ral electorate. In the long run, this strategy is unsuccessful- .Working in t=
he churches alone will not result in lasting success." (52)
Christian Coalition's get-out-the-vote efforts are nonpartisan, contrary t=
o the ADL's assertions. The ADL repeats partisan claims by the Democratic Nat=
ional Committee, which recently has launched an orchestrated campaign of bigo=
try against people of faith in the political arena. It mentions specious comp=
laints that the DNC has filed with Federal Election Commission. It fails to m=
ention that both the FEC and the IRS have found the Christian Coalition's non=
partisan voter guides in full compliance with the law.
The ADL conveniently ignores the fact that every complaint filed by the De=
mocratic Party against the Coalition has been resolved in favor of the Christ=
ian Coalition, most notably a 1990 complaint that advertisements opposing tax=
payer-funding of pornography constituted "express advocacy" on behalf of spec=
ific candidates. The FEC found that the advertisements were entirely consiste=
nt with the Christian Coalition's status as a nonpartisan issues organization=
. (53)
The ADL also fails to mention the fact that the Coalition has engaged in v=
oter education activities in a number of Democratic races. For example, in th=
e spring of 1994 in Houston, Texas, the Coalition distributed voter guides in=
a campaign in which Beverly Clark, an African-American, pro-life Democrat, r=
an in a congressional primary. "The Christian Coalition distributed nonpartis=
an voter guides in over 100 black churches and made thousands of nonpartisan =
get-out-the-vote calls to African-American voters from grassroots phone banks=
." (54) Clark forced Ken Bentsen, nephew of the Treasury secretary an=
d former Texas senator, into a run-off.
A voter guide distributed for the April 12 Democratic run-off listed Clark=
's and Bentsen's stands (labeled "supports" or "opposes") on ten public polic=
y issues. The answers were provided to the Coalition in response to a candida=
te survey. Those issues were: "Increased income taxes; balanced budget amendm=
ent; abortion-on-demand; taxpayer funding of abortion; voluntary prayer in sc=
hools; mandatory sentences for violent crimes; homosexuals in the military; p=
arental choice in education (vouchers); federal government control of health =
care; 'workfare' requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to work or get job =
training." (55) The Coalition distributed a similar voter guide in a =
Mississippi Democratic congressional primary in 1994.
In Cincinnati, Ohio in 1993, pro-family activists supported Charles Winbur=
n, an African-American pastor of the Kingdome Church, in his run for the city=
council. Winburn, a registered Democrat, graduated from a Christian Coalitio=
n training school and campaigned for welfare reform and school choice. (56=
)
The Coalition's 1994 Congressional Scorecard, which lists Senators' and Re=
presentatives' votes on a wide range of issues affecting families, makes no d=
istinctions based upon party affiliation. Representative Charles Stenholm, (D=
-TX) scored a 100-percent rating on the Christian Coalition Scorecard. Repres=
entative Pete Geren, (D-TX) scored a 93- percent rating, as did Representativ=
e Gene Taylor, (D-MS). Some of the Democrats who have spoken at Christian Coa=
lition events in recent years include: state Representative Roger Byrd (D-GA)=
, Duval County (FL) School Board member Stan Jordan, Beverly Clark, Charles W=
inburn, and State Representative Woody Jenkins (D-LA). (57)
A number of other Democrats received high ratings on the Congressional Sco=
recard. Sen. Richard Shelby (D-AL), for instance, agreed with Coalition posit=
ions on 71 percent of the surveyed votes. Representative Jimmy Hayes (D-LA) s=
cored 86 percent. Representative Sonny Montgomery (D-MS) rated 71 percent, as=
did Representative William Lipinski (D-IL). Representative Matthew McHugh (D=
-NY) had a 93-percent rating.
The Christian Coalition Scorecard highlighted Senate votes on such issues =
as: tax incentives for families; balanced budget amendment; taxpayer-funded a=
bortions; Joycelyn Elders' nomination for surgeon general; term limits for Co=
ngress; and condoms for school children without parental consent. House votes=
included: cutting government waste; parental notification for abortion; abst=
inence-based sex education; lifting the ban on fetal tissue research; crimina=
lizing pro-life speech. Each vote is factually described. (58)
The 1994 Congressional Scorecard clearly states that the listing of these =
votes on issues affecting the family does not imply an endorsement for office=
or a commentary on the personal faith of the elected official. "This Scoreca=
rd is for informational purposes and is not intended to influence the outcome=
of any election," the Scorecard reads. "Christian Coalition does not advocat=
e the election or defeat of any candidate, and does not endorse any political=
party. Scores in this Scorecard are not to be taken as a commentary on the p=
ersonal faith of individual members of Congress. The information in this Scor=
ecard is provided as a tool to help you more effectively lobby your Congressm=
an and two Senators on issues before the 103rd Congress." (59)
The Coalition's Scorecard and voter guides are little different from the i=
nformational ratings issued by the AFL-CIO, Americans for Democratic Action, =
American Conservative Union and numerous other organizations. The Coalition s=
imply provides to voters - of all political persuasions - what they richly de=
serve: reference tools that show how their elected representatives in governm=
ent stand on issues of concern to families.
The ADL complains that Coalition members play a major role in some state a=
nd local party organizations because they are the most energetic participants=
. What is wrong with citizens taking part in the political process? The ADL t=
akes issue with religious conservatives who are simply exercising their right=
s of citizenship.
The Christian Coalition's Leadership Manual provides members with nuts-and=
-bolts information on the electoral process, from how to organize a local cha=
pter and requirements for Christian Coalition affiliation to how to conduct a=
voter canvass.
The Coalition's purposes, as outlined in the manual, are as follows:
"Your job as a Christian Coalition leader is to identify the Christian vot=
e and get it to the polls," the manual says. (61) In this sense, the =
Coalition's mission is no different from the League of Women Voters, the Nati=
onal Organization for Women, NARAL, the AFL-CIO, or Jesse Jackson's Rainbow C=
oalition, which has registered hundreds of thousands of African-Americans to =
vote.
The Coalition's policy stances are rooted in faith - as were America's fou=
nders, who spoke of the people of this nation as being endowed by their "Crea=
tor" with "certain inalienable rights." As Reed said on NBC's Meet the Press:=
"The apostle Paul told the early Christians to render unto Caesar the thing=
s that are Caesar's and to exercise their civic responsibility. And what we'r=
e saying is that in a democracy, when you render unto the government that whi=
ch is due it, that means your vote, your informed participation and your invo=
lvement." (62)
The ADL apparently regards grassroots democracy as a threat to, in its wor=
ds, "tolerance and pluralism." In fact, the Coalition and the ADL simply disa=
gree on public policy issues. The Coalition does not support taxpayer-funded =
abortion as a form of birth control. Neither do 87 percent of the American pe=
ople, according to a recent survey. But the ADL equates a pro-family, pro-lif=
e position with intolerance. Indeed, Abe Foxman, executive director of the AD=
L, even charges that supporting the sanctity of innocent human life creates "=
hostility" in which "tolerance and pluralism inevitably plummet." (63) The Christian Coalition believes students should be allowed to exercise th=
eir First Amendment right to free speech, including speech of a religious con=
tent. The ADL says this somehow violates the separation of church and state. =
If so, it may have a dispute with President Clinton as well. In a town hall m=
eeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, in April 1994, Clinton stated his view t=
hat voluntary prayer does not violate the Constitution: "Now, it's been carr=
ied to such an extent now where they say, some people have said you can't hav=
e a prayer at a graduation exercise. I personally didn't agree with that. Why=
? Because if you're praying at a graduation exercise or a sporting event, it'=
s a big open air thing, and no one's being coerced."
"I do not agree that people should not be able to freely pray and to ackno=
wledge God. We have a chaplain in Congress, in the Senate and the House." =
(64)
Does the ADL believe that President Clinton is undermining pluralism by hi=
s opposition to the Lee v. Weisman decision of 1992 that bans high school gra=
duation prayer? His position is identical to that of the Christian Coalition.
We may believe the ADL is wrong about some policy issues, but unlike the A=
DL we do not question their right to hold such views or their commitment to p=
luralism. And we stand arm-and-arm with the ADL in giving no quarter to anti-=
Semitism or bigotry of any kind.
Unfortunately, the ADL report has become part of a highly partisan campaig=
n against religious folk launched by the national Democratic party. By lendin=
g its name to this campaign against people of faith, the ADL risks being view=
ed as an organization driven more by partisan politics than Jewish concerns.
In August 1993, the Washington-based National Jewish Democratic Council he=
ld a conference to organize a 40-group coalition to oppose Christian conserva=
tives. Among the participants were Arthur Kropp, president of People for the =
American Way, and Clinton Cabinet members Federico Pena and Donna Shalala.=
(65)
Throughout 1993, Lieutenant Governor Don Beyer of Virginia ran a particula=
rly vicious, bigoted campaign against Mike Farris, the Republican candidate f=
or lieutenant governor. Beyer used materials supplied by People for the Ameri=
can Way which accused Farris of seeking to ban books such as The Wizard of Oz=
. The Washington Post concluded that the charges were false. Michael Barone o=
f U.S. News and World Report said that the allegation against Farris "unfairl=
y distorts and ridicules" his views. (66)
In June of 1994, just days after the ADL released its report, Representati=
ve Vic Fazio (D-CA), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Commit=
tee, launched a new attack on religious conservatives, calling them "fire-bre=
athing fanatics." The Democratic National Committee even has set up a bulleti=
n board on Compuserve called "Radical Right," which contains speeches and oth=
er party documents designed to assault Christians.
U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders gave a speech in New York City within=
weeks of the ADL report's release in which she referred to religious folk wh=
o are conservatives as "un-Christian." This was a clear assault on the deeply=
-held religious beliefs of millions of Americans. All 44 Republicans in the S=
enate condemned this act of arch-bigotry in a letter to President Bill Clinto=
n, and 87 members of the House of Representatives called for Elders' resignat=
ion. (67) What was the ADL's reaction to this act of defamation? Thun=
derous silence.
The ADL, once a respected civil rights organization, has aided and abetted=
a campaign of intolerance against people of faith with whom they disagree po=
litically. Instead of calling the Democrats to task for dividing Americans ba=
sed on where they go to church or synagogue, the ADL has cast its own stones.=
=20
"It's an old thing in politics," said Representative Dick Armey of Texas, =
"Whenever you are trying to get people's attention, you create a monster out =
there. So, they are looking for a bogeymen, and they are hyping the story tha=
t the Republican Party is being taken over by a bunch of extremists." (68)=
"We are in a race between civilization and catastrophe," former Education =
Secretary Bill Bennett said of the campaign against religious conservatives. =
"We have record murder and violent crime rates, huge increases in births to u=
nwed mothers, educational decline, broken families, and a president who has e=
stablished a record of broken promises. All of this, and we are told that the=
very religious are what we must fear. Religion is on the side of civilizatio=
n; more people ought to begin to realize it." (69)
The ADL report is full of accusations that the Christian Coalition does no=
t support the separation of church and state. Its sources include undated fly=
ers passed out at conferences and quotations lifted out of context - as well =
as more unreliable pseudo-scholarship by Skipp Porteous. It also features att=
acks on David Barton, a Texas-based scholar who has argued that many of Ameri=
ca's founders were sympathetic to Christian values. Most of Barton's work ext=
ensively documents writings of the nation's founders.
The truth is that there is a lively debate about the role of religion in p=
ublic life and the meaning of the First Amendment. The Christian Coalition su=
pports the Establishment clause prohibiting a state- sponsored church. It doe=
s not support attempts to use the establishment clause to stifle the free spe=
ech rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims, native Americans, or anyone else.=20
That is why the Christian Coalition supported the Religious Freedom Restor=
ation Act of 1993, which overturned the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Empl=
oyment Division v. Smith. In this decision the Court discarded the "compellin=
g state interest standard" criteria for judging whether laws violated rights =
to free exercise of religion. The ADL strongly supported this legislation as =
well.
In the same spirit, the Christian Coalition supports free speech rights fo=
r children in public schools. While we oppose mandatory prayers composed by s=
chool officials, we believe voluntary, student-initiated prayer is consistent=
with First Amendment rights to free speech. While disagreements over First A=
mendment issues abound, it is disingenuous to suggest that those who would al=
low religious speech in public schools are ipso facto opposed to church-state=
separation. The ADL quotes Pat Robertson as arguing that the "separation of =
church and state" is a "Soviet concept." This quotation is lifted out of cont=
ext. Robertson merely noted that the term "separation of church and state" d=
oes not appear in the U.S. Constitution, which is a statement of fact. The Fi=
rst Amendment specifically reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an e=
stablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Robertson is a strong supporter of the First Amendment. For example, durin=
g his 1988 presidential campaign, Robertson stated: "I believe absolutely in =
the separation of church and state." (70)
In 1991, he said on Larry King Live, "I think it [the separation of church=
and state] is far better. You look at Europe where they have established chu=
rches and they are really dying out. We have a much healthier church here in =
America, free from government money- .But I don't think the Constitution requ=
ires government to be opposed to religious faith."(71)
Robertson's words echo those of William O. Douglas in Zorach v. Clauson (1=
952). "We are a religious people whose system of government presupposes a Sup=
reme Being," argued Douglas. There was, he added, "no constitutional requirem=
ent which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to =
throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious in=
fluence." (72)
For most of America's history, church pulpits flamed with sermons about so=
cial injustices ranging from slavery and racism to poverty and the liquor tra=
de. No one suggested that these activities posed a threat to the separation o=
f church and state. Americans always have resisted the notion of a national r=
eligion, but embraced faith-based political movements as an essential counter=
balance to social injustice and government encroachments on liberty.
This is the view of the Christian Coalition. As Ralph Reed argues in his f=
orthcoming book: "None of this adds up to the conclusion that America is a 'C=
hristian nation' in the sense of a theocratic state or a unicultural society.=
That not only ignores the enormous contribution that Jews have made to Ameri=
ca, but it is something of an anachronism. It makes just as much sense to say=
that Massachusetts is a Puritan colony or that Maryland is a Catholic state.=
" (73)
Reed adds, "What religious conservatives want is to accommodate the histor=
ic role of faith in American civic life. In short, they seek to restore the t=
ime-honored tradition of civil religion - not to establish Christianity by la=
w or to create an official church." (74)
"Our agenda, ultimately, of the Christian Coalition, isn't about theology,=
" Reed said on ABC Nightline recently. "It is about public policy. We are try=
ing to get public policy that is more family-friendly. And we think lower tax=
es, smaller government, and government that lives within its means is more fa=
mily friendly." (75)
The supreme tragedy of the ADL report is there is a resurgent anti-Semitis=
m across the land emanating from sources as wide-ranging as the Ku Klux Klan,=
former Farrakhan lieutenant Kahlid Abdul Muhammad (who called New York city =
"Jew York City"), David Duke, and some opponents of the Israeli lobby. But an=
inaccurate, biased, and politically motivated report like the recent ADL off=
ering undermines efforts to combat anti-Semitism. By crying wolf, the ADL end=
angers its credibility at a time of rising bigotry and a period of extraordin=
ary delicacy in the Middle East peace process.
In response to criticism of its report, the ADL has refused to back off, t=
hough it has engaged in some strategic public relations backpedaling. (76)=
For its part, the Christian Coalition will continue to combat anti-Semi=
tism and religious bigotry in all its ugly forms. It is willing to seek commo=
n ground with Jewish organizations on issues of mutual concern. The Christian=
Coalition never will waver from its steadfast defense of the Jewish people a=
nd the nation of Israel, though it has been unfairly attacked by the ADL.
"The Jewish community should recognize the depth of religious faith among =
Christian evangelicals and treat the Religious Right with tolerance and respe=
ct," urges Marshall Breger of the Heritage Foundation. (77)
The ADL has displayed neither tolerance nor respect. Instead, it has enga=
ged in a partisan campaign of innuendo, half-truths and outright falsehoods.
Sadly, the ultimate losers are not the ADL's constituency, but all of us, =
for we desperately need a legitimate watchdog to combat bigotry. The Anti-Def=
amation League has committed defamation, not only against religious conservat=
ives, but against its own stated purpose.
We earnestly hope the ADL returns to its time-honored and vital role of en=
suring that intolerance has no place in our civic discourse. For our part - d=
espite the unfair and shoddily researched attack by the ADL - we will remain =
vigilant in seeing that anti-Semitism and bigotry does not rear its monstrous=
head in our society.
1. Mona Charen, "ADL Playing Upon Old Fears?"Washington Times, Jul=
y 7, 1994, A17.
2. Boschwitz Op-Ed submitted to the New York Times July 25, 1994.
3. Sam Skolnik, "ADL Takes Heat for Criticizing Christian Right,"W=
ashington Jewish Week, June 30, 1994.
4. Don Feder, "ADL Attack Discredits Organization," Boston Herald,=
June 16, 1994.
5. Beth Gilinsky, letter to the editor, New York Post, July 13, 19=
94 (original in possession of author).
6. An "annotated" bibliography provides few specific references. =
For sources on the Christian Coalition, for example, the ADL provides vague c=
lues such as this: "The Los Angeles Times provided a comprehensive account of=
San Diego by Barry Horstman (March 22, 1992), and generally offers reliable =
West Coast coverage; the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, The Freedom Writer, Group R=
esearch Report, People for the American Way's occasional reports and the grou=
p's monthly, Right- Wing Watch, were consulted frequently." Thus, the reader =
is supposed to take it on ADL' s word that its sources are reliable and that =
the quotations in the ADL report are accurate. Without specific listings of s=
ources it is impossible to check many of its assertions.
7. Acknowledgments in the ADL report include, in addition to those=
already mentioned: Project Toscin, Coalition for Human Dignity, Group Resear=
ch Report, Citizens Project, Mainstream Voters Project and Women' s Project. =
ADL, p. i.
8. Larry Kanter, "Gaining Journalistic Status Gives ADL a Legal Sh=
ot in the Arm," Northern California Jewish Bulletin, v. 142, No. 38, October =
15, 1993, p. 3.
9. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 42.
10. Thomas L. Jipping, "The Anti-Defamation League's Campaign of D=
efamation," Free Congress Foundation, June 24, 1994, p. 13.
11. ADL, "The Religious Right," p. 27.=20
12. Ibid.
13. Transcript of NBC's Meet the Press, November 29, 1992, p. 4.
14. Sean Loughlin, "Christian Coalition's Soldier Marches On," Sar=
asota Herald-Tribune, February 22, 1994.
15. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 42. (The ADL consistently spells Wi=
ttmann' s name as "Wittman.")
16. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 91.
17. Thomas L. Jipping, "The Anti-Defamation League's Campaign of D=
efamation," June 24, 1994, Free Congress Foundation, p. 14.
18. David Cantor, "Anti-Defamation League Response to the Christia=
n Coalition," July 13, 1994.
19. ADL, "Religious Right," pp. 2, 21, 22, 24, 42, 43, 97.
20. Transcript of speech for Christians' Israel Public Action Camp=
aign, "Pat Robertson: Defender of Israel," January 30, 1994, p. 12.
21. Larry B. Stammer, "Religious Broadcasters Vow Fight On Doctrin=
e Issue," Los Angeles Times, February 18, 1993.
22. John Wheeler, Jr., "Peace in the Holy Land," Christian America=
n, February 1994, page 1, 4.
23. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 43.
24. John Wheeler, Jr., "Anti-Semitism in the Church," Christian Am=
erican, July/August 1991, p. 12.
25. Ibid, p. 12.
26. Rudy Boschwitz Op-Ed submitted to the New York Times July 25, 1=
994.
27. Sam Skolnik, "ADL Takes Heat for Criticizing Christian Right,"=
Washington Jewish Week, June 20, 1994.
28. Don Feder, "ADL Attack Discredits Organization," Boston Herald=
, June 16, 1994.
29. Rod Drehrer, "Pro-Israel Group Decried ADL Attack: Christian C=
onservatives Are Friends," Washington Times, June 28, 1994, A12.
30. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 45.
31. Memo to Christian Coalition from Rhett Davis, July 5, 1994.
32. Ibid.
33. Don Feder, "ADL Attack Discredits Organization," Boston Herald=
, June 16, 1994.
34. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 2.
35. Transcript of CBN' s 700 Club, November 13, 1991.
36. Dennis King and Chip Berlet, "ADL Gate," Tikkun, July/August 37. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 20.
38. Ibid, p. 29.
39. Ibid, p. 28.
40. Thomas B. Edsall, "Christian Political Soldier Helps Revive Mo=
vement," Washington Post, September 10, 1993, A4.
41. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 20.
42. Jeff Baran, letter to Christian Coalition national office, July=
25, 1994.
43. Carol Innerst, "Parents Labeled Religious Fanatics for Fightin=
g Schools: Schools Learn Ways to Pin Labels on Parental Foes," Washington Tim=
es, April 13, 1994, A1.
44. Transcript of CNN' s Crossfire, December 18, 1992 [Transcript =
#727], p. 10.
45. KABC Radio, November 15, 1993.
46. Ralph E. Reed, working manuscript: The Dynamic Role of Religio=
n in American Life (Dallas, TX: Word, Inc., 1994), p. 34.
47. Ralph E. Reed, "Casting a Wider Net," Policy Review, (Summer 1=
993), p. 31-33.
48. See, for example: "Christian Coalition NYC Voter Driver is Mul=
ti-Cultural Grassroots Effort," Christian Coalition press release, April 28, =
1993. The New York Times carried in-depth stories about the Coalition's invol=
vement in the May 4 elections on April 10, April 16 and April 17. Other New Y=
ork media provided similarly detailed coverage.
49. Sam Dillon, "Spirited Race for Schools Accelerates," New York =
Times, April 28, 1993, B2.
50. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 32.
51. Letter from Ralph Reed to Rick Schenker, October 7, 1992.
52. Christian Coalition Leadership Manual (1994), p. 19.
53. ADL, "Religious Right," p. 36-37; 1990 FEC MURS 3167 and 3176,=
pp. 23, 24.
54. Reed, working manuscript, p. 223.
55. Christian Coalition Voter Guide, Texas Democratic Runoff Elect=
ion, U.S. Congress, District 25.
56. Barbara Woerner, "African-American Christian Wins Office," Chr=
istian American (April 1994), p. 9.
57. Christian Coalition Congressional Scorecard, 1994 Edition.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Christian Coalition Leadership Manual, p. 1.3.
61. Ibid, p. 3.23.
62. Transcript of NBC's Meet the Press, November 29, 1992, p. 1.
63. ADL, "Religious Right," p. iii.
64. White House Press Office, "Remarks of President Clinton in 'Ev=
ening with the President' in Charlotte, North Carolina," April 28, 1994, U.S.=
Newswire.
65. Deborah Kalb, "Jewish Democrats Target Religious Right," Manha=
ttan Jewish Sentinel, August 11-17, 1993, pp. 1, 11.
66. Michael Barone, "In Virginia, Distorted Debate," Washington Pos=
t, October 28, 1993, p. A23.
67. Larry Marasak, "Elders Resignation Urged," Houston Chronicle, =
June 25, 1994.
68. Transcript of ABC's Nightline, June 23, 1994.
69. Statement by William J. Bennett, Press Conference on Religious=
Bigotry in Virginia Politics, October 25, 1993.
70. John Margolis, "Robertson Candidacy on Line in South Carolina,=
" Chicago Tribune, March 5, 1988.
71. Transcript of CNN's Larry King Live, April 10, 1991.
72. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).
73. Reed, working manuscript: p. 126.
74. Ibid.
75. Transcript of ABC's Nightline, June 23, 1994.
76. In a letter to the editor of the New York Post published on Ju=
ly 13, 1993, Foxman downplays the ADL report as mere "criticism" and says "a =
healthy democracy encourages and depends on the political involvement of cons=
ervative Christians."
77. Marshall Breger, "Jewish Community Should Recognize Depth of Re=
ligious Faith," Moment, April 1994, p. 14.
Twisting Words Out of Context
Reaction from the Jewish Community
Opposing David Duke
Conspiracy Theories of the Left
Guilty of Democracy
As Ralph Reed argues in his forthcoming book:
The New York City Mode
Another Distortion: The Phantom Manual
A Nonpartisan Coalition
Reaching Out to Democrats
How the Christian Coalition Works
Personalizing Public Policy Differences
Partisan Attacks
The Separation of Church and State
Conclusion
END NOTES
Copyright © 1995 by The
Christian Coalition of
this page and all contents. All Rights Reserved.
--===============8354604990319013858==--
From perry@piermont.com Wed Dec 17 23:17:14 2003
From: "Perry E. Metzger"