by Terry Mahoney

Created on: April 24, 2008

Evangelical Christians are clearly not a political party in the traditional sense, but recent American political cycles also clearly show that a significant portion of the evangelical community has pooled their strength to achieve political relevance. Whether or not a person sees this as appropriate largely depends on their own political position on key issues upon which evangelicals have had an impact, and also on their own personal faith.

The surge in political action by the Christian Right, as they are also known, has created a push back by those who hold antithetical views on key issues. Because these issues are among the most hotly contested in our society (abortion and the traditional family structure, to name a few) both the push back and the original political efforts have largely devolved into shouting matches, ad-homonym attacks and single-sided debates against straw men solely within the confines of one side or another.

All of this leads to a lack of constructive dialog, and therefore the lack of actual progress to move forward in healing the wounds caused by the war of words. It can be argued that no such constructive dialog is possible considering the root causes of the debate. By using abortion as an example, it is easy to illustrate this defeatist attitude. Because one side views abortion as murder and the other side views reproductive rights as a basic necessity of a free society, there appears to be no possible middle ground.

Given the level of conviction each side feels, even to negotiate would seem to be lending a modicum of credence to the other side, and therefore unacceptable. Instead of negotiating, then, the contest devolves into a political chess match with the final goal being the imposition of one side's will upon the other.

Into this battleground we then inject uniquely American modifier of the First Amendment's proscription of against governmental interference in religion, and how the three branches of government have chosen to legislate, enforce and interpret that amendment over the last two centuries. Whether it is a religious organization's tax-free status or a difference of opinion on whether the founders intended a nation based solely on Judeo-Christian values, it is a situation that can not be settled in a final and logical manner based strictly on our body of laws.

Until both sides of the debate can recognize that the current state of affairs will never lead to an equitable solution, the dialog will remain unconstructive, and the evangelical faction will continue to use the political process to attempt to bring the country closer to their ideal. Any legal modification to or limitation of these efforts is strictly a move in the political chess match that will further exacerbate the situation.

When we, as media consumers, stop encouraging the debasement of the discussion into a political cat fight by choosing to support inflammatory reporting and discussion, a meaningful dialog will then ensue. But, in a free market media economy, that end will take coordinated effort by those caught in the middle of this struggle.

Learn more about this author, Terry Mahoney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.