MAP

For the last 10-15 years the majority of evangelical Christians along with a variety of religious groups have openly aligned themselves with the Republican party. Through this alignment, the GOP has developed a reputation for being the “Christian” party and the Democratic party has been accused of being amoral and anti-family. In the late 70s the Republican party found that if they integrated just few key issues into their political platform they could almost guarantee the support from an enormous portion of the population: Christians. This partnership drastically changed politics and the use of rhetoric concerning religion. Since then, the GOP has successfully crafted language that has maintained the bond between their party and religious conservatives. They have used rhetoric to create an “us versus them” mentality between the Republicans and the Democrats by clearly defining how the parties differ, especially concerning social issues. The Democrats on the other hand have not been as successful at creating rhetoric that highlights the similarities between their values and Christian values. This paper will analyze the rhetoric of the political religious right.

Up until the 60s and 70s the majority of Christian groups stayed out of politics, but some ministers, most notably Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., became involved in the civil rights movement. But evangelical Christians had not yet taken the stage in politics, prioritizing winning souls above all else.

“If as much effort could be put into winning people to Jesus across the land as is being exerted in the present civil rights movement, America would be turned upside down for God,” stated Rev. Jerry Falwell in 1964.

Falwell had a change of heart with the passing of Roe v. Wade in 1973. Full of conviction, Falwell was determined not to let the U.S. continue down, what he believed, was an immoral path. Using his platform as a popular preacher, he fervently began encouraging his congregation and Christians to voice their political views. Despite the fact that many Christian denominations and other religious groups could not agree on specific dogma and principles, Falwell realized that just a few key issues could unite them politically.

“The movement, he said, had a simple agenda — pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-moral, and pro-American — precisely the kind of broad agenda to unite conservatives of different faiths and backgrounds,” wrote New York Times' Peter Applebome for Falwell's obituary in 2007.

Powered by this philosophy, Falwell formed the evangelical political group the Moral Majority in 1979. Promising millions of votes to which ever party would support their interests, the Moral Majority became an extremely powerful influence in politics and would later serve as the binding to the Christian conservatives and the GOP.

Falwell and company avoided complex ideological differences between religious groups and instead focused on the few similarities the groups had. Centering in on only a few issues gave the campaign and rhetoric simplicity and pushed politics into a black and white mindset. By integrating God and Christian values directly into politics, the Moral Majority made voting their way the “right”thing to do and insinuated guilt if believers voted otherwise, producing an “us versus them” mentality. They did not merely advocate for moral principles or philosophies in politics, but drew a line in the sand with specific issues.

“Moral majority is not a religious organization. If it were, we could not get 72,000 pastors, which includes Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Fundamentalists together etcetera without a blood battle. The fact is, is that it's political, very political organization and wants membership based upon citizenship in this country and a commitment to pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-moral, and pro-American position,” declared Rev. Jerry Falwell at a news conference regarding the new group.
Despite announcing that the Moral Majority was not a religious organization but a political one, many political speeches made by group supporters were spoken from church pulpits to vast congregations.

Standing on stage before a congregation, a pulpit and Bible in front of him, without speaking a word Falwell and others established an unspoken authority and power. He already had an enormous following and was a popular televangelist before he was involved in politics. Falwell was well aware of his position.

“Television made me a kind of instant celebrity,” he wrote. “People were fascinated that they could see and hear me preach that same night in person,” (Applebome).

Similar to the strong symbolism of taking an oath by laying a hand on the Bible, in a way pastors did this theoretically when they spoke about issues such as politics in a religious platform. They are leaders, shepherds of flocks, and their words and thoughts are held in great regard by their congregation. Their credibility is readily accepted and highly relied upon, sometimes with few questions. They have a captive audience.

Pastors, ministers, and the like are trained public speakers. They are skilled rhetoricians who not only know how to hold an audience for hours, but how to convict, inspire, and teach their congregations. Falwell and others used the same set of rhetorical skills they had administered every Sunday to persuade believers to base their vote on the support of key issues.

“I'm sick and tired about hearing about all the radicals, and the perverts, and the liberals, and the leftists, and the communists coming out of the closet! It's time for God's people to come out of the closet and out of the churches and change America!” exclaimed an impassioned Rev. James Robison at the 1980 Religious Roundtable.

Robison, a televangelist, spoke with conviction and unbridled passion that had his audience up on their feet, cheering next to one another.

By clustering liberals with perverts, radicals, and communists, Robison creates a broad and general definition of individuals who vote for the Democratic party. He creates clear labels and immoral associations that are meant to incite disgust and fear. By connecting liberals with “perverts,” Robison was most likely making a reference to the emerging AIDS epidemic. The United States was also involved in the Cold War with the USSR at the time. Much like the way radical Islam was viewed after 9/11, during the Cold War communism was viewed as a security threat, an ideological threat to the American way of life, and as a threat to Christianity and other faiths.

The Moral Majority's goal was to get believers registered to vote; they were politically powerless otherwise.

“We have a threefold primary responsibility: number one, get people saved; number two, get them baptized; number three, get them registered to vote,” famously stated Falwell publicly.

The group distributed brochures, pamphlets, stickers, and other marketing materials. Among them was as sticker that simply stated “vote,” but in place of a “t” was a cross. This speaks volumes. This sticker not only encouraged Christians to vote, but to base their vote on Christian values, which were being discussed by one cohesive group: the Moral Majority.

At the time, the Moral Majority had not yet sided with a particular party but had advertised their views and that they desired moral candidates that would restore Christian values in America.

Enter presidential candidate Jimmy Carter.

Carter was transparent concerning his faith, proclaiming that he was a born again evangelical Christian and a devout follower of Jesus Christ. He presented this personal information without complexity or flair.

“I formed a very close intimate personal relationship with God, through Christ, that has given me a great deal of peace, equanimity, the ability to accept difficulties without being unnecessarily being disturbed...” plainly stated Carter at a news conference in 1976.

He stammers often throughout the statement. He uses little to no inflection and shares only a small and brief smile. Throughout his campaign and presidency, Carter continues to share openly, but almost in a shy fashion, about his faith. He is quiet but open. The Moral Majority and religious groups were ecstatic to have a candidate who was a man of God. Bailey Smith, a keynote speaker at the Southern Baptist Convention, spoke of Carter at the gathering:

“If there's anything we need whether it's bad form or good politics, is a man who is more proud of his faith in Christ than any political aspirations he might have.”

Smith's comments argue for morality above all else and allowed for bipartisanship.

Carter's faith and rhetoric surrounding it, caused Moral Majority leaders to rally behind him, seemingly bipartisan. This quickly dissipated when Carter supported the Equal Rights Amendment as well as other left of center politics. The Moral Majority and other religious groups pulled away their support and felt that Carter was participating in the destruction of the family by supporting equal rights for women. They once again used simplicity and powerful speech to convince followers that Carter and other were undermining the family and family values by raising women to equal status.

They went on to create similar rhetoric concerning the abortion debate, producing a whirlwind of emotion and establishing it as a deal breaker issue.

Renowned Christian thinker, Francis Schaeffer, produced an animation about abortion. In the film, a line of dancing marshmallowy looking little men come out with top hats. Moments later, cynical mischievous looking doctors creep onto the stage and suck the “babies” up. Following, are a sexy line of showgirl nurses holding bundled up babies, only to kick them off the stage. Narrating in the background is Schaeffer:

“The issue of abortion is not one divided along religious lines. Certainly by any means it is not uniquely a Roman Catholic issue.”

The doctors have large noses and dark hair. They do not look “American.” The nurses who kick the babies off the stage are sexy, giving the impression that they may be promiscuous, possibly associating the identity of women who abort with these nurses. The group uses strong visuals and language. Using words like “murder” and the animation gives the impression that abortion is easy and frivolous. This rhetoric has stayed largely intact among the political religious right and has become an issue that the majority of Republicans are expected to support.

The religious right cemented its bond with the Republican party upon the election of President Ronald Reagan. The Moral Majority played an enormous role in his election and advised him on how to win Christian votes.

“I suggested to Mr. Reagan that because that it was bipartisan that it would be in his best interest, since we could not and would not endorse him as a body, then it would probably be wise in his opening comment would be: I know this is nonpartisan so you can't endorse me but I want you to know, I endorse you,” advised Robison to Reagan before speaking at a religious gathering.

Reagan went on to say just that. By saying that he endorsed them, he was saying that he endorsed their politics, which he did for the most part. He skillfully used emotion and language to win audiences and voters.

Since then, the divide between party lines has become greater and the rhetoric stronger and more simplistic. Many Christians and evangelical political groups encourage believers to base their vote on just a handful of key issues. The Republicans have adopted these issues and have become the party of choice for millions of Christian groups. The language against liberals has gotten more severe and is associated with immorality and the demise of Christian values in America. The powerful entrance of religion into politics has produced a desire among many voters for a clear rhetoric explaining the place of God in candidates' politics. Religious rhetoric has become a powerful political tool that is currently wielded by many.