http://www.counterpunch.org/monkerud04082005.html
April 8, 2005
God's Shock Troops
The Religious Right and US Foreign Policy
By DON MONKERUD
When Americans ponder why the rest of the world regards it with less
respect, they could turn to the recent controversy created by the U.S.
delegation at the March meeting in New York of the U.N. Commission on
the Status of Women.
The issue reveals both the new approach of right-wing fundamentalists
to international organizations and the extent that such groups
increasingly determine U.S. foreign policy.
At the two-week meeting, attended by 6,000 women from 130 countries,
the U.S. delegation created a furor when it refused to sign a
declaration reaffirming the Beijing Platform for Action.
Signed by the U.S. and 184 other countries in 1995, the Platform
included resolutions asserting the fundamental rights of women and
called for ending discrimination against women in 12 important areas.
Before signing a reaffirmation of the Beijing Platform, the U.S.
delegation demanded that an amendment rejecting abortion be inserted.
Meeting with widespread opposition from international women's
organizations and supported only by Egypt and Qatar, the leader of the
U.S. delegation, Ambassador Ellen R. Sauerbrey, eventually relented
and signed the declaration.
Before signing, Sauerbrey made it clear that the declaration would not
legally bind the U.S. under international law, did not recognize
abortion as a method of family planning, or support abortion in its
reproductive health assistance, and did not support quotas as a method
of advancing women.
Sauerbrey, a Republican national committeewoman described as a
"conservative stalwart" by National Review magazine, stressed that the
U.S. upholds an "ABC" approach to women's health: abstinence, be
faithful and the use of condoms, "where appropriate" to prevent the
spread of HIV/AIDS.
According to Zonibel Woods, senior advisor for international policy at
the International Women's Health Coalition, instead of addressing
important human rights issues and determining how to move forward at
the conference, the U.S. delegation spent its time attempting to roll
back commitments made ten years ago.
"They wasted a lot of time," said Woods.
"They claim to defend women's rights, but they attack women's rights
at every international meeting when they think no one is looking."
Woods observed that other countries are frustrated by U.S. policy that
focuses moralistically on abstinence, parental rights, and restricting
comprehensive health education.
In addition to withholding $34 million earmarked for United Nations
Population Fund, used to promote family planning, sexual and
reproductive rights, sex education and condom use, Bush imposed "a
global gag rule," which prevents organizations that receive U.S. funds
from counseling, referring or providing information on abortion.
The U.N. estimates that withholding these funds led to an additional 2
million unwanted pregnancies and more than 75,000 infant and child
deaths.
According to the conservative National Review, Sauerbrey represents "a
very conservative, very pro-family" agenda into U.N. programs.
Sauerbrey told United Families International that she is "fighting the
battle" and "expressing what heartland America is really about . . .
moral leadership."
A collection of advocates for right-wing think tanks and
fundamentalist groups now populate U.S. delegations to the U.N.
For example, the official U.S. women's delegation includes:
Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women's Forum, which
is opposed to spending tax dollars to relieve violence against women
and opposes women's comparable pay efforts and affirmative action
programs; and Winsome Packer, former executive assistance to the vice
president of the Heritage Foundation.
Such appointments clearly signaled a change of management at the State
Department.
Bush's appointments to non-governmental organization (NGO) observer
status to the U.N. come from right-wing religious groups:
* Janet Parshall, author of Tough Faith: Trusting God in Troubled
Times and Light in the City: Why Christians Must Advance and Not
Retreat, hosts a conservative talk show and frequently attacks women's
rights advocates such as Gloria Steinem and Patricia Ireland.
* A devout Presbyterian, Patricia P. Brister served as chairman of the
Republican Party of Louisiana and chairman of Bush/Cheney '04 in
Louisiana.
* Susan B. Hirschmann, a lobbyist, is a former chief of staff for Tom
DeLay and former executive director of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum,
a conservative political action group that helped defeat the Equal
Rights Amendment and is a vociferous opponent of the feminist
movement.
Such appointments illustrate a religious focus on foreign policy that
is a break with the traditional separation of church and state, a
policy that began to change with Pat Robertson and the creation of the
Moral Majority.
Backed by social conservatives, neoconservative ideologues and the
religious right, Ronald Reagan declared that foreign policy would
henceforth rest on moral clarity combined with military might.
"From the earliest days in America, fundamentalists stuck with
separation of church and state and saw no role for fundamentalist
Christians in politics," said Wilfred M. McClay, professor of history
and humanities at the University of Tennessee.
"The Baptists feared that 'who pays the piper calls the tune.' But in
the 1970s, the Moral Majority broke this pattern."
In the 1980s and 1990s, some estimate that right-wing foundations
poured over $1 billion into conservative think tanks, organizations
and lobbying efforts.
According to the Media Transparency grants database, in 1994 these
conservative "philanthropies" and think tanks controlled $1.1 billion
in assets.
From 1992 to 1994, they awarded $300 million in grants and targeted
$210 million to support a wide variety of projects and institutions.
Approximately 12 foundations fund a network of interconnected groups,
which coordinate activities and push similar agendas.
Several of these right-wing religious groups stand out for their
growing power in foreign policy.
They include:
* The Center for Security Policy claims it is "committed to the
time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through
American strength." Its website condemns the U.N. General Assembly for
"utopian socialism" and as a haven of anti-Americanism whose members
"can only be regarded as enemies." It questions whether the U.S.
should be a member of the U.N. and praises Bush for his willingness
"to finish the war (in Iraq) and win at all costs."
* The Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) claims "to reform the
social and political witness of the American churches" by countering
the "secular agenda of the Left" with "the timeless message of Jesus
Christ." In fact, the IRD concentrates on attacking and discrediting
church leaders and provoking conflict in mainline Protestant
denominations that embrace "leftist crusades" such as feminism,
environmentalism, pacifism, multi-culturalism, socialism, sexual
liberation and other movements that "pose a threat to our democracy."
The IRD supported the Contra death squads in Central America and
right-wing militaristic Zionists, and criticized mainstream Christians
that "spout pacifist-sounding slogans." The IRD is closely allied with
antifeminist organizations such as Concerned Women for America and the
Ecumenical Coalition on Women and Society, who aim to "counter radical
feminist ideology and agenda."
* The Institute for Public Policy and Religion (IPPR), which backs the
central role of religion in public life, is led by Richard John
Neuhaus, a Catholic priest and an outspoken advocate of democratic
capitalism. Since its founding, the IPPR has tried to steer American
concern away from human rights toward religious freedom. The institute
warns its followers against engaging in global warming issues,
supports "just wars" and advocates greater Christian participation in
public and foreign policy to promote family life, right-to-life,
anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage programs.
* The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), established in 1976,
aims "to clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian
moral tradition and the public debate over domestic and foreign policy
issues." The EPPC was the first institute to attack "secular
humanists" and promote a "cultural war" against liberalism. Ernest
Lefever, founder of EPPC, authored America's Imperial Burden, which
justifies American empire building. Convicted felon Elliott Abrams
served as president from 1996 to 2001.
A myriad of other groups such as the Independent Women's Forum,
Empower America, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for
America, and the International Right-to-life Foundation also play a
role in promoting a religious right-wing agenda.
The efforts of these groups has paid off in converting the role of the
Christian right from one of criticizing the U.N. as a secular
institution to infiltrating and attempting to reshape the U.N. agenda.
According to Mark Silk, director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center
for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College, Bush's
focus on religious issues such as abortion, religious school vouchers,
same sex marriage, and Israel helped mobilize his white evangelical
base.
Since 9/11, foreign policy has taken on "significant religious
dimensions" with "a rhetorical style of America bringing God's gift of
freedom to the planet."
By breaking down the separation of church and state, these groups are
bringing religion squarely into the center of government and
refocusing governmental policy on their narrowly defined ethical and
religious views.
Few would disagree with an infusion of ethics into politics but as
always, the devil is in the details.
These groups share a belief in the superiority of American religious
and economic systems and are quick to force them upon other countries
and cultures.
"Ethics that assume the superiority of traditional Judeo-Christian
values over other cultures and religions is arrogant," said Tom Barry,
policy director for the International Relations Center.
"This idea does not facilitate democratic or constructive engagement,
but leads to reaction and growth in religious fundamentalism by
destabilizing other cultures and societies."
In its Middle East policy, the U.S. follows the direction set by these
right-wing religious groups, bringing democracy, capitalism and
American values, backed by military force.
While many may agree with the goals, which also eliminate reason as a
guide to U.S. foreign policy, the approach of the religious right
proves counterproductive.
"We are not facilitating democratic or constructive engagement but
fostering a reaction," said Barry.
"By threatening people, we drive them back to fundamentalist values.
We are leading to a growth in religious fundamentalism."
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
Scientology murder: http://PerkinsTragedy.org
Improving the herd: http://www.rightard.org/
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/ricef.html
.
|
