Religious Right Bogeyman? Convince me otherwise

The religious right is polarizing opinion in this country and heavily affecting our political system. Perhaps the Christian right does not fundamentally threaten the nation, but it clearly represents a central stress point between the social and fiscal conservatives within the GOP. And, the alternate reality “Christian Nationalism” has created for it’s some of its followers, as Michelle Goldberg chronicles in her book, Kingdom Coming, is more than a little bit scary.

Admitting that the religious right may not be the downfall of America, the defense of the movement by Star Parker is as ridiculous as it is hypocritical. Her central thesis seems to be: of course the Christian community frowns on single parent families; it’s the most effective way to fight poverty. What?

The “breakdown” in families may be on the rise, strongly correlating to poverty, and quite depressing, but Parker misses the question of causality. You do not become instantly poor by having a child out of wedlock, or living in a single parent family. However, if you are poor, those family structures are significantly more likely to be your own. Single-parent-families may add to poverty, but they don’t make a person poor. Rather poverty is a cause of the “family breakdown.” Shaming people into marrying and staying married will not magically solve the poverty crisis in America, as Parker suggests:

There is no correlation that fits closer to the incidence of poverty than family breakdown.
Yet, we hear about the intolerance and mean-spiritedness of the Christian right because of its unwillingness to embrace single parenthood as a norm or sexual lifestyles and family arrangements outside of what is traditional as a norm.

How can you claim to fight single parenthood and at the same time strongly lobby for abstinence only sex education, which studies have proven have no effect on teen pregnancy? Maybe the Christian right is, just a little bit, obsessed with “abortion and sexual behavior.”

Parker blasts our government for giving away billions in poverty aid to no real effect, in the same article she defends the political groups lobbying heavily for ever greater funding for faith based initiatives. These programs are designed to, among other things, fight poverty. So aid is only effective when given to the religious right? I’m dubious.

Christian organizations, including far right political groups, do tremendous good in America. Their social programs help millions, and their lobbying efforts keep the citizenry politically engaged. However, the religious right has the downside of advocating (often without a willingness to compromise or negotiate) positions which polarize and divide the country, and sometimes even lead to ineffective policies (example: sex education.) The Christian right isn’t all good or all bad, but it clearly isn’t the only effective anti-teen pregnancy, anti-poverty machine that Parker portrays it as.