American cyclist, Lance Armstrong just won a record-setting 6th consecutive Tour de France. What's most inspiring about this 32-year old athlete, is that just 8-years ago he was battling for his life, undergoing surgery and chemotherapy for cancer. How did he recover to accomplish such a feat? He started by believing that he could.

Individuals, with courage born of conviction, have always made a difference. Who comes to mind (for you) when I make that statement? Maybe a national leader or a conquering hero? Perhaps a patriot, pioneer, pastor, public servant, or parent? Or, come to think of it, a person just like...you or me.

Do you recall the picture of that lone Chinese man who faced-down a line of tanks in Beijing? Last month marked the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising. Although the movement was violently suppressed after only a 7-week occupation, this image of individual conviction remains symbolic of the winds of change sweeping China today. What kind of person steps into harm's way? Someone who believes in a cause.

In every generation, in every corner of the globe, history is replete with examples of courageous individuals, who against all odds, found the determination to stand-up for what they believed in. And in the process of doing so, they inspire us to make a difference. This month we look back on three "individuals of conviction" of a different sort, whose lives continue to advance the cause of righteousness and traditional values for our generation.

We start with President Ronald Reagan's remarks at an ecumenical Prayer Breakfast in 1984. While much has already been written that eulogized the accomplishments of this great conservative leader, few accounts are more telling of what underpinned his principled conviction, than glimpses of his strong faith in God. As reflected in his remarks, this servant of the people was committed "To act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly" (Mic 6:8) with the Almighty.

We follow with a letter from Dr. James Dobson, which spells-out nine key issues that will shape America's future. For decades this champion of traditional family values, has demonstrated the conviction of character that could only flow from someone with a deep sense of trust in the person, principles, and precepts of God. His prescient discussion of "America's Choices" was written before the 2000 election, and is included here now to demonstrate the wisdom of his clarion call then -- for defending traditional family values.

Finally, we review the prayer of Minister Joe Wright, given in the Kansas Senate opening session last year. His petition of the Almighty, on behalf of those who mean to govern with wisdom, is exemplary of the convictions shared by an untold numbers of conservative "prayer warriors" who intercede for their nation. The Reverend's prayer precedes a review of demographic information on the "collective" individual voice of Evangelical Christians, who together comprise 23 percent of the American population, and constitute a growing influence in American politics and culture.

And what will be the collective effect of these conservative "individual" influences today? Would you like to guess what happens when you combine an unrelenting erosion of decency, an obstructionist minority and an activist judiciary, in an election year? Most likely we'll see a backlash from those who hold traditional values -- tantamount to a conservative "reawakening" in America.

Like the sleeping giant in Gulliver's Travels, the slumbering "moral majority" seems to have shaken-off their fog and spoken-up in a united fashion on everything from defense of marriage to demand for movie performances like the Passion of Christ. What's especially troubling for the Left is the bond that's forming between previously factious people of faith.

If this results in a wider populist movement, uniting diverse people of faith over these issues, we may well have reached the "critical mass" necessary for effecting positive change in this country -- not to mention determining the outcome of the 2004 election.

Roy Tanner



President Reagan's Remarks at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast in Dallas, Texas
(August 23, 1984)

"Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, very much...These past few weeks it seems that we've all been hearing a lot of talk about religion and its role in politics, religion and its place in the political life of the Nation. And I think it's appropriate today, at a prayer breakfast for 17,000 citizens in the State of Texas during a great political convention, that this issue be addressed.

I don't speak as a theologian or a scholar, only as one who's lived a little more than his threescore ten -- which has been a source of annoyance to some -- [laughter] -- and as one who has been active in the political life of the Nation for roughly four decades and now who's served the past 3-years in our highest office. I speak, I think I can say, as one who has seen much, who has loved his country, and who's seen it change in many ways.

I believe that faith and religion play a critical role in the political life of our nation -- and always has -- and that the church -- and by that I mean all churches, all denominations -- has had a strong influence on the state. And this has worked to our benefit as a nation.

Those who created our country -- the Founding Fathers and Mothers -- understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion.

The Mayflower Compact began with the words, "In the name of God, amen.'' The Declaration of Independence appeals to "Nature's God'' and the "Creator'' and "the Supreme Judge of the world.'' Congress was given a chaplain, and the oaths of office are oaths before God.

James Madison in the Federalist Papers admitted that in the creation of our Republic he perceived the hand of the Almighty. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, warned that we must never forget the God from whom our blessings flowed.

George Washington referred to religion's profound and unsurpassed place in the heart of our nation quite directly in his Farewell Address in 1796. Seven years earlier, France had erected a government that was intended to be purely secular. This new government would be grounded on reason rather than the law of God. By 1796 the French Revolution had known the Reign of Terror.

And Washington voiced reservations about the idea that there could be a wise policy without a firm moral and religious foundation. He said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man (call himself a patriot) who (would) labour to subvert these...finest duties of men and citizens. The mere Politician...(and) the pious man ought to respect and to cherish (religion and morality).'' And he added, "... let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.''

I believe that George Washington knew the City of Man cannot survive without the City of God, that the Visible City will perish without the Invisible City.

Religion played not only a strong role in our national life; it played a positive role. The abolitionist movement was at heart a moral and religious movement; so was the modern civil rights struggle. And throughout this time, the state was tolerant of religious belief, expression, and practice. Society, too, was tolerant.

But in the 1960's this began to change. We began to make great steps toward secularizing our nation and removing religion from its honored place.

In 1962 the Supreme Court in the New York prayer case banned the compulsory saying of prayers. In 1963 the Court banned the reading of the Bible in our public schools. From that point on, the courts pushed the meaning of the ruling ever outward, so that now our children are not allowed voluntary prayer. We even had to pass a law -- we passed a special law in the Congress just a few weeks ago to allow student prayer groups the same access to schoolrooms after classes that a young Marxist society, for example, would already enjoy with no opposition.

The 1962 decision opened the way to a flood of similar suits. Once religion had been made vulnerable, a series of assaults were made in one court after another, on one issue after another. Cases were started to argue against tax-exempt status for churches. Suits were brought to abolish the words ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance and to remove ``In God We Trust'' from public documents and from our currency.

Today there are those who are fighting to make sure voluntary prayer is not returned to the classrooms. And the frustrating thing for the great majority of Americans who support and understand the special importance of religion in the national life -- the frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and openmindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? [Applause] They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives.

If all the children of our country studied together all of the many religions in our country, wouldn't they learn greater tolerance of each other's beliefs? If children prayed together, would they not understand what they have in common, and would this not, indeed, bring them closer, and is this not to be desired? So, I submit to you that those who claim to be fighting for tolerance on this issue may not be tolerant at all.

When John Kennedy was running for President in 1960, he said that his church would not dictate his Presidency any more than he would speak for his church. Just so, and proper. But John Kennedy was speaking in an America in which the role of religion -- and by that I mean the role of all churches -- was secure. Abortion was not a political issue. Prayer was not a political issue. The right of church schools to operate was not a political issue. And it was broadly acknowledged that religious leaders had a right and a duty to speak out on the issues of the day. They held a place of respect, and a politician who spoke to or of them with a lack of respect would not long survive in the political arena.

It was acknowledged then that religion held a special place, occupied a special territory in the hearts of the citizenry. The climate has changed greatly since then. And since it has, it logically follows that religion needs defenders against those who care only for the interests of the state.

There are, these days, many questions on which religious leaders are obliged to offer their moral and theological guidance, and such guidance is a good and necessary thing. To know how a church and its members feel on a public issue expands the parameters of debate. It does not narrow the debate; it expands it.

The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.

A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens; the more decent the citizens, the more decent the state. If you practice a religion, whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or guided by some other faith, then your private life will be influenced by a sense of moral obligation, and so, too, will your public life. One affects the other. The churches of America do not exist by the grace of the state; the churches of America are not mere citizens of the state. The churches of America exist apart; they have their own vantage point, their own authority. Religion is its own realm; it makes its own claims.

We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions.

I submit to you that the tolerant society is open to and encouraging of all religions. And this does not weaken us; it strengthens us, it makes us strong. You know, if we look back through history to all those great civilizations, those great nations that rose up to even world dominance and then deteriorated, declined, and fell, we find they all had one thing in common. One of the significant forerunners of their fall was their turning away from their God or gods.

Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

If I could just make a personal statement of my own -- in these 3-years I have understood and known better than ever before the words of Lincoln, when he said that he would be the greatest fool on this footstool called Earth if he ever thought that for one moment he could perform the duties of that office without help from One who is stronger than all.

I thank you, thank you for inviting us here today. Thank you for your kindness and your patience. May God keep you, and may we, all of us, keep God.

Thank you."



Dr. James Dobson Discusses America's Choices (circa 2000)

Nine Key Issues That Will Shape Our Future

On the eve of the new millennium, America stands at a crossroads. The events of the coming months will heavily influence the course of our country and our culture in coming years. For Christians, the stakes have never been higher. In this document I address nine of the most critical issues facing our nation. Each is vital to our collective moral health. I have grouped issues in related categories and attempted to provide an overarching biblical perspective, grounded in a Christian worldview, for each category. In addition, I offer a brief cultural survey of every issue as well as an assessment of what is at stake for the future.

The Sanctity of Human Life

Upholding and defending the unconditional value of each human life is a core principle at Focus on the Family. We believe that human life is of inestimable worth and significance in all its dimensions from conception to the grave. In recent years our nation has watched the gradual erosion of this foundational ethic to the point that innocent human life, created in the sacred image of God, is now viewed as disposable at both ends of life's spectrum. The individuals elected to lead our nation over the next several years will have a tremendous impact on these life issues' either to rebuild the foundational appreciation for human life or push the culture further off the ledge of death.

Abortion remains the single most critical moral issue of our day, as it has for the last 27 years. The number of dead and wounded mounts daily. Some 35 million unborn children have been legally killed since the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973.(1) Mingled with the dead babies are their often-hurting mothers, many of whom suffer deep, long-lasting physical, emotional and psychological scars from making their legal "choice" to destroy their own flesh and blood. One reason the SS System is insolvent, is because the next generation of taxpayers has been eliminated.

Some Christians have lost heart and focused their attention away from the abortion fight. We cannot abandon these little ones and their desperate mothers. A nation that wantonly sacrifices its youngest members is in danger of imminent judgment by a holy and righteous God. We must not allow our hearts to grow weary in this battle nor our ears to become dulled to the silent cries of these precious babies.

President Clinton once said that he wanted to make abortion "safe, legal and rare."(2) It is obvious now that he had no intention of honoring that pledge. In fact, twice he has vetoed an effort by Congress to ban the hideous partial-birth abortion procedure.(3) Lest I need to remind you, this practice involves partially delivering a baby, feet first, until only her head remains in the birth canal. Then, an abortionist forces sharp scissors into the back of her skull, removes the brains and collapses the head to deliver a dead child. This brutal act is committed against viable babies who can survive outside the womb. Retiring Democratic U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan compared it to infanticide.(4) Experts in maternal health testified before Congress that this procedure is never medically necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.(5)

It is tragic that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court could not (or would not) comprehend these truths when it declared Nebraska's state ban on partial-birth abortions unconstitutional in June.(6) Despite this ruling, we should urge the next President and Congress to make passage of a federal ban to prohibit this procedure a top priority. We cannot give up on attempts to pass a meaningful and successful ban of this barbaric and unnecessary act.

The incoming administration and Congress also will have an opportunity to defend innocent life in other areas where the unborn are targeted for inhuman practices. Will they oppose and work to ban federal funding for research that destroys human embryos for the purpose of stem-cell experiments, or will they declare open season on these tiny babies under the auspices of "medical advancement"? Will they use the power of their offices to speak out against the U.S. distribution of the abortion drug RU-486, or will they encourage even more abortions by promoting its use?

Before leaving this fundamental issue, I must address one falsehood that is repeatedly conveyed by a largely pro-abortion media, that it is political suicide to support the right to life. The truth is, Americans have been moving in a more pro-life direction every year.(7) Seventy-one percent of Americans support greater restrictions on abortion.(8) In fact, a majority of American women now want abortion made illegal, or legal only in the rare circumstances of rape, incest or to save the mother's life.(9) Two-thirds of Americans support a ban on partial-birth abortion.(10) And, among voters for whom abortion is a key issue, pro-lifers outnumber abortion advocates by a significant margin.(11)

Physician-Assisted Suicide

A quarter century after Roe vs. Wade, advocates of radical and unrestrained abortion rights have trained their guns on the other end of life. The elderly, infirm and disabled now face a future where their lives are endangered by the encroaching philosophy that less-than-"perfect" life is unworthy of living" regardless of whether that person wants to live.

They have cast the argument in terms of personal autonomy "the right of an individual to determine his own future" to control his own life. But as with abortion, that is a perversion of the debate. It is not about "personal autonomy." It is, instead, about a crippling philosophy and one person killing another.

The state of Oregon has legalized physician-assisted suicide, and Maine voters face the question on their ballot in November. (Fortunately, three other states have rejected similar initiatives at the polls.) Within just two years of legalization, Oregon already has provided lethal drugs to at least one patient who was merely depressed and another who was of questionable competence.(12) There is evidence of other patients traveling from physician to physician "doctor-shopping" until they locate one who would help them kill themselves, even if their qualifications under the law were questionable.(13) In another case, medical personnel described a daughter as "coercive" in encouraging her mother to an early grave, yet the patient was still given deadly medicine.(14)

The so-called "safeguards" in laws such as Oregon's do not work. Look at what has happened in the Netherlands, where doctors have been allowed to practice physician-assisted suicide for more than a decade, as long as the act is "voluntary" on the part of the patient. Yet, two in-depth Dutch government reports found that more than one-quarter of euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands were "without the explicit consent of the patient."(15)

The next President and Congress could effectively stop state-sanctioned medical suicide in all 50 states by passing and signing into law legislation such as the "Pain Relief Promotion Act." This bill would make it illegal to use controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia, overriding any state laws to the contrary.

Sexuality

Sex is a gift from God. It is designed for the physical, emotional and spiritual uniting of a man and woman exclusively in the context of a lifelong committed marital relationship. The apostle Paul even implies that the sexual union of a husband and wife helps us to understand Christ's great love for the church. Sexual expression outside the confines of marriage cheapens God's gift and subverts His perfect design. Whenever the physical acts of sex (or even images associated with sex) are separated from the relational context God intended, they lead to heartache, disappointment and pain.

Homosexuality

Homosexuality has become the cause du jour of those who seek to undermine the family. Though homosexuals comprise only 2-3 percent of the population,(16) they exert incredible influence over the political arena. Abetted by a pro-homosexual news and entertainment media, the radical gay activists' assault on morality has reached a fever pitch. This spring, homosexuals achieved a form of "gay marriage" in Vermont,(17) and are now pushing for recognition of same-sex unions in the other 49 states.

Congress is considering homosexual "hate crimes" legislation that would set up special classes of victims based on sexual behavior. Under such a law, some crimes committed against heterosexuals would be punished less severely than the same crimes against homosexuals.

Among the other legislative items facing the new President and incoming Congress will be the question of whether to reverse the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forces the military to allow practicing homosexuals. In addition, we may be faced with the prospect of federal legislation that would mandate special rights for homosexuals in the workplace.

Sex Education

The federal government continues to funnel $500 million per year into "safe sex" programs(18) that encourage teens to be sexually active, and to suffer the physical and emotional consequences. On the bright side, a handful of dedicated conservatives in Congress succeeded in establishing the Title V abstinence education program, which provides $50 million per year to states to promote sexual abstinence until marriage. Even so, proponents of "safe sex" have conspired with their allies in government to divert part of this relative pittance to such things as ice hockey clubs and even Planned Parenthood affiliates!(19)

Nevertheless, the abstinence message is taking hold. The birthrate among teen girls declined from 6.2 percent in 1991 to less than 5 percent in 1999, the lowest rate in 60 years.(20) Also in the last decade, the abortion rate among teens has dropped,(21) while the percentage of teens who are abstinent is increasing.(22)

Funding for Title V expires in 2002. This program should not only be extended, but funding from the failed "safe sex" initiatives should be diverted to these programs that actually protect teens. States should also be made to comply with the intent of the law, ensuring that only true abstinence-based organizations receive these funds. Further, faith-based organizations should be eligible for Title V money.

Finally, the President should remove "safe sex" advocates from key health department positions. His appointments to the posts of the Secretary of Health, the Surgeon General and the head of the Centers for Disease Control should adhere to the philosophy that abstinence is the only fool-proof way of saving our teens from the trauma of STDs, abortion and emotional despair.

Pornography

It has been 14 years since I served on the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. For a few years after that commission, our government made tremendous strides in the war against pornography. However, the rapid growth of the Internet combined with an incredible level of neglect from the Clinton administration has inspired a new boom in this degrading and dehumanizing industry.

Today, pornography invades even the quiet corners of our libraries and homes. The American Library Association has become a stalwart promoter of children's access to pornography under the guise of the First Amendment.

Our friends at the Family Research Council recently released a study documenting more than 2,000 reports of children and adults viewing pornography online in the public library.(23) A disturbing survey conducted for the Center for Missing and Exploited Children indicates that one out of every four children (ages 10 to 17) were exposed to unwanted pornography over the Internet last year.(24)

The Janet Reno-led Justice Department refuses to enforce laws that the Congress passed (and the Supreme Court affirmed) to target the worst types of illegal pornography, bestiality, torture and other violent images. At a congressional hearing on this issue, former Department of Justice official Robert Flores noted that in the past four years, not a single Internet-based obscenity case has been brought by the Clinton administration.(25)

The next President must order the Justice Department to vigorously enforce laws against illegal pornography. Furthermore, Congress and the President must work together to pass legislation that protects children from harmful sexual images online and, if necessary, the President must be willing to defend that legislation against activist judges. Lastly, any school or library receiving federal money for Internet access should be required to filter pornography. (As of this writing, Congress has passed such a bill which President Clinton has yet to sign.)

Marriage and Family

God instituted marriage as the foundational building block of society. Further, the bond between a husband and a wife is designed to reflect Christ's relationship with His church. Children proceed from the marital union as a tangible expression of the couple's love for one another. Parents are charged by God with the primary responsibility for raising, nurturing and instilling a love for God and others in their offspring. Any governmental policy that impedes or ignores this truth undermines God's perfect design for the family.

Taxing Families

Three decades after our nation's disastrous experiment with no-fault divorce, both liberal and conservative scholars now agree that strong married families are the most important factor in raising healthy children.(26) Yet, our tax code is decidedly hostile to American families. Nowhere is this more evident than in the marriage penalty tax. Twenty-five million married couples in this country pay an average of $1,400 more in taxes each year simply because they are married.(27) To its credit, Congress attempted to remedy the problem this summer, but President Clinton inexplicably vetoed the legislation.(28)

Repealing the marriage tax is important symbolically in conveying that our elected leaders value the institution of marriage. For millions of families just scraping to get by, it also would provide a very tangible and significant financial boost. Couples who choose to care for their children in the home are likewise penalized. Parents who place their children in day care receive tax breaks that are subsidized by those who care for their children at home. This not only encourages families to transfer child-rearing responsibilities to a third party, it is also a gross injustice. Married couples with only one income earn $25,000 less each year on average than do two-earner couples.(29) These one-income couples deserve at least the same tax breaks as households with two incomes.

Finally, Congress and the President should expand the child tax credit. Congress took an encouraging first step in 1997 bypassing a $500 per-child credit.(30) Yet, this amount is but a drop in the bucket compared to the escalating costs of raising, educating and caring for children in the 21st century. Since 1955, the tax burden has ballooned from 18 percent to about 38 percent of the typical American family's income(31), more than the average family spends on food, housing, clothing and transportation combined.(32)

Education

Polls tell us that education is the most important issue among all voters.(33) Many of our schools are besieged by abysmal academic performance, violence, homosexual propaganda, alcohol, drugs, sexual promiscuity, moral relativism (under theguise of multiculturalism), revisionist history and amoral sex education, among other things. Typically, the "solution" offered by politicians is more money or new federal programs. These are not the answer. The answer is to empower parents. Mothers and fathers have been entrusted by God with the task of directing their children's education. It is they who best understand their children's unique personalities and learning requirements.

Parents, therefore, should be enabled to choose the educational option that best suits their children's needs. For most parents, and especially those with low and moderate incomes, this dream is presently unattainable. The next President and Congress will have the opportunity to break the stranglehold of the teachers' unions and entrenched bureaucracies and lead the fight to offer parents real choice in education.

They can also do much to improve the situation in our public schools. Their first objective should be to remove hindrances imposed by federal bureaucrats. They should resist the temptation to create even more federal education programs, and limit in some cases, or cut completely, funding for existing ones. Teachers, school boards and local education officials are far better positioned and equipped to make decisions in the best interests of students in their community. They should be enabled to do so.

Government

One of Focus on the Family's five guiding principles regards the proper relationship between the institutions of the church, family and government. In recent years, government has begun to usurp the authority of the other two institutions, or to step outside its "sphere of sovereignty," as Dutch statesman and theologian Abraham Kuyper described the relationship. According to Romans 13, government's God-ordained function is to promote justice, encourage righteousness, and suppress evil.

Religious Freedom

As Christians we should be deeply concerned about the escalating hostility and even violence toward religious believers in many corners of the world. In 1999, an estimated 166,000 persons were martyred for their faith worldwide.(34) In Sudan, the radical Islamic regime has undertaken a ruthless campaign of bombings, torture and murder against Christians and others of non-Islamic faith.(35) Christians also face intense persecution in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India and Russia.(36) Perhaps the worst offender is China, where Christians are prohibited from even meeting together. Violators regularly receive lengthy prison or labor camp sentences simply for exercising their beliefs.(37)

This year, with President Clinton's heavy-handed lobbying, the House of Representatives voted to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China despite its vicious persecution of religious believers. (As of this writing, a Senate vote is pending.) We have turned our backs on our Christian brothers and sisters and given a green light to China's Communist leaders to continue their brutal oppression of Christians. The next President and Congress can stand boldly for religious freedom by speaking out against religious persecution and applying powerful economic sanctions against repressive regimes. Or they can capitulate to the almighty dollar and condemn tens of thousands more Christians and other religious believers to unspeakable suffering and injustice.

Here in the United States, our own government has demonstrated a growing antagonism against religion in a nation that was founded to allow the free exercise of religious beliefs. Courts regularly rule against any form of religious expression, no matter how benign. As I mentioned in my September letter, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in April struck down the 40-year-old state motto of Ohio, "With God, all things are possible."(38)

One positive development, however, is the emerging movement to further enable faith-based organizations to address a variety of social ills. I would urge the next President and Congress to strongly support such "charitable choice" programs, provided they ensure the religious integrity of the organizations is fully safeguarded in matters such as hiring.

Supreme Court Appointments

The Supreme Court sank to new depths this year when it struck down the Nebraska law that banned partial-birth abortions. Unfortunately, that was only the beginning. Other lowlights from the court included:
· Allowing cable TV companies to transmit pornographic channels into homes that do not want it;(39)
· Stripping First Amendment rights from pro-life counselors outside abortion clinics;(40)
· Outlawing student-led prayer at high school football games;(41) and
· Requiring college students to fund groups they morally oppose.(42)
· The Court also came within one vote of forcing the Boy Scouts to allow homosexual leaders.(43)

These "robed masters," with a few notable exceptions (particularly Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas), have taken it upon themselves to redraw the Constitution according to their own whims. Fortunately, as many as four of the current justices are expected to retire in the next few years. Thus the new President and the Senate, which confirms his appointments, may have the ability to shape the court for decades to come. Even replacing one justice could have a monumental impact on the laws of our land. In the most recent court term, 20 of the court's 73 signed decisions were decided by a single vote.(44) One changed vote would have upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion, or required the Boy Scouts to permit homosexual leaders.

It is imperative that these new judicial appointees respect the Constitution, and especially that they uphold the rights to life, religious liberty and freedom of speech. If, instead, even more justices are appointed who view the Constitution as irrelevant and who hold "the laws of nature's God" in contempt, this country will inevitably slide into even greater depths of depravity and tyranny.

Endnotes:
1. Centers for Disease Control, "Abortion Surveillance Summaries," 8 August 1997 and 7 January 2000 (Includes estimate of 1.2 million abortions per year from 1998-2000).
2. "Clinton Wows Many Delegates with Looks, Views," Orlando Sentinel, 15 December 1991, p. A14.
3. Sandra Sobieraj, "Clinton Vetoes Ban on Late-Term Abortions," Associated Press, 10 October 1997.
4. "Moynihan Opposes Partial-Birth Abortion," Times Union (Albany, N.Y.), 12 May 1996, p. A8.
5. Congressional Briefing on partial-birth abortion presented by Physicians, Ad-hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT), Washington, D.C., 24 July1996.
6. Stenberg vs. Carhart (28 June 2000).
7. Ramesh Ponnuru, "Not Dead Yet: The Pro-Life Movement Is Winning," National Review, 17 May 1999.
8. Richard Benedetto, "Abortion Poll Reflects Public's Deep Divisions," USA Today, 5 May 1999, p. 15A.
9. Center for Gender Equality, "As Religions Increase Political Involvement, New National Survey Finds Women Are Becoming Both More Religious and More Conservative," 27 January 1999.
10. Lydia Saad, "Americans Hold Mixed Views on Miranda Rights; Poll Reviews Attitudes Toward Variety of Supreme Court Cases in the News," Gallup Organization, 28 June 2000.
11. Wirthlin Worldwide, "1998 Post-Election Survey," Prepared for National Right to Life, 4 November 1998. See also National Right to Life Committee, Inc., "The Pro-Life Advantage," (undated).
12. E. Hoover and G.K. Hill, "Two die using suicide law," [Portland] Oregonian, 25 March 1998; E.H. Barnett, "Is Mom Capable of Choosing to Die?" [Portland] Oregonian, 16 October 1999.
13. D. Gianelli, "Praise, Criticism Follow Oregon's First Reported Assisted Suicide," American Medical News, 13 April 1998.
14. Barnett, op. cit.
15. P.J. van der Maas, G. van der Wal, I Haverkate, et al., "Euthanasia, Physician Assisted Suicide, and Other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands, 1990-1995," New England Journal of Medicine, 335, pp. 1699-1705; P.J. van der Maas, J.J.M. van Delden, L. Pijenborg, Euthanasia and Other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life (Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1992).
16. R. Michael, J. Gagnon, E. Laumann, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1994), pp. 175-177; Tom W. Smith, "American Sexual Behavior: Trends, Socio-Demographic Differences, and Risk Behavior," National Opinion Research Center, GSS Topical Report No. 25, December 1998, p. 50.
17. Ross Sneyd, "Vermont Governor Signs Bill Creating Marriage-Like "Civil Unions,"" Associated Press, 26 April 2000.
18. "The Implementation of the Abstinence Education Provisions in the Welfare Reform Act," Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, 25 September 1998, pp. 178-179.
19. See for instance, Application For Grant For Abstinence Education Funds from Family Support Center to State of Utah Department of Health, 1 January 1998-30 September 1998.
20. "New CDC Birth Report Shows Teen Birth Rates Continue to Drop," National Center for Health Statistics, 8 August 2000; "Births: Preliminary Data for 1999," National Vital Statistics Reports, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 8 August 2000.
21. "Legal Abortion Ratios, According to Selected Patient Characteristics: United States, Selected Years 1973-97," Health, United States, 2000, Centers for Disease Control, p. 144; "Abortion Surveillance—United States, 1996," MMWR Weekly, 30 July 1999.
22. "Fact Sheet: Youth Risk Behavior Trends," Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, available at http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/yrbs/trend.htm.
23. David Burt, "Dangerous Access 2000 Edition: Uncovering Internet Pornography in America's Libraries," Family Research Council, 2000.
24. Crimes Against Children Research Center, "Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth," June 2000.
25. "Prepared Statement of Mr. Robert Flores at Oversight Hearing on Obscene Material Available via the Internet," Subcommittee on Telecommunications Trade & Consumer Protection, 23 May 2000.
26. See, for instance, "The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles," Institute for American Values, 2000.
27. Federal News Service, "New Conference with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Other Republicans; Subject: Marriage Penalty Tax Relief," 20 July 2000.
28. Pamela Hess, "Clinton Vetoes Marriage Penalty Tax," United Press International, 5 August 2000.
29. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1999 (119th edition), Washington, D.C., 1999, p. 480.
30. "Key Features of Major Tax Bills Since 1981," Associated Press, 6 August 1997.
31. "New Study Profiles Total Tax Burden of Median American Family," Tax Foundation, 9 March 2000.
32. Daniel J. Mitchell, "Time for Lower Income Tax Rates: The Historical Case for Supply-Side Economics," Heritage Foundation, 19 February 1999.
33. The Gallup Poll, Election 2000, CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, July 25-26, see: www.gallup.com/election2000/ issues.htm; Dan Balzana Richard Morin, "Education Voters' Pose A Tough Test," Washington Post, 30 June 2000, p. A1.
34. David C. Barrett, "Annual Statistical Table on Global Missions: 2000," International Bulletin of Missionary Research, January 2000.
35. Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, 1 May 2000; David Saperstein, "Commissioner's Opening Remarks of Issuance of First Annual Report [of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom]," 1 May 2000.
36. International Christian Concern, "Prayer Points," June 2000; Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, op. cit.
37. "Report: China Arrests Christians," Associated Press, 23 August 2000; Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, op. cit; Saperstein, op. cit.
38. "Court Throws Out Ohio State Motto," Associated Press, 26 April 2000.
39. United States vs. Playboy (22 May 2000).
40. Hill vs. Colorado (28 June 2000).
41. Santa Fe School District vs. Doe (19 June 2000).
42. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin System vs. Southworth (22 March 2000).
43. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (28 June, 2000).
44. Gerald F. Seib and Jackie Calmes, "Where Gore and Bush Diverge on the Issues Has Become Critical," Wall Street Journal, 28 July 2000, p. A1.

Copyright © 2000 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.



Prayer given in Kansas at the opening session of their Senate.

When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:

"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and call it Pluralism. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent to direct us to the center of Your will and to openly ask these things in the name of Your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen!"

The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest...In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright ispastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively.

The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea. Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, "The Rest of the Story," and received a larger response to this program than anyother hehas ever aired. With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called "one nation under God."



Evangelicals in America

As 23 percent of the American population, white evangelicals are an important part of the American mainstream whose collective voice is growing louder both in politics and in culture. In many respects, white evangelicals look like other Americans. They live all over the country, they are found in cities and small towns alike, they have friends outside of their churches, and a majority have at least some college education. They share concerns with the rest of the country about the cost of healthcare and having a secure retirement. Yet white evangelicals share a set of strongly-held beliefs about the role of religion in daily life, and they incorporate a set of religious behaviors based on these beliefs into their daily lives. It is these beliefs and behaviors that set them apart religiously and politically from the rest of the country.[1]

Main Findings

White evangelicals hold a conservative set of religious beliefs about the interpretation of the Bible and salvation from personal faith alone. They are also deeply committed to their religious imperative to spread their faith.

White evangelicals actively incorporate their faith into their daily lives, through formal activities like regular church attendance, but also through informal activities like Bible study, daily prayer, or talking about religion with their friends.

White evangelicals are deeply committed to making a difference in their local community through volunteer work and charitable donations.

White evangelicals are politically conservative. They are deeply concerned with the state of moral values in the country. However, they also articulate concerns about the economy consistent with other Americans, such as healthcare and retirement.

White evangelicals rally around a foreign policy agenda that prioritizes safety and security at home over altruism and protection of other religious minorities abroad.

White evangelicals are deeply concerned with moral values and the protection of the family. They are extremely opposed to gay marriage and civil unions, but are mixed about the value of a Constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage.

White evangelicals steadfastly believe they are part of the American mainstream, but they believe the media are hostile toward their values and that it is a fight to get their voices heard by the American mainstream.

Who are Evangelicals?

Taking a look at the demographic distribution of evangelicals in America reveals that they are a population that is difficult to pigeonhole. They are a diverse group, sharing many characteristics of Americans in general. For example, white evangelical Christians are not overly concentrated in the South, despite popular assumptions. Rather white evangelical Christians are evenly spread out throughout the country. Slightly less than a third (31 percent) of white evangelicals live in the Deep South, compared with 28 percent of the general population. Many also live in the East North Central (19 percent, versus 16 percent of the general population) and Pacific (14 percent, versus 16 percent of the general population) states.

White evangelicals do disproportionately live in smaller population centers, like small towns (31 percent) or rural areas (25 percent). This contrasts with Americans in general (22 percent in small towns and 18 percent in rural areas, respectively). Only about 9 percent of white evangelicals live in large cities (as opposed to 19 percent of the general population).

Like most Americans, most white evangelicals have attained at least some college education. About 22 percent of white evangelicals hold 4-year college degrees, compared with 27 percent of the general population. A quarter (27 percent) of white evangelicals have some sort of post-secondary education, compared to 26 percent of the general population.

White evangelicals are older than average: nearly a quarter of white evangelicals (23 percent) are 65 years or over, compared with about 16 percent of the general population. Many (27 percent, versus 18 percent of the general population) are retired.

Evangelicals come from many different Protestant denominations. Roughly 29 percent of white evangelicals are Baptist, and half of them (52 percent, or 16 percent of overall white evangelicals) are Southern Baptists. An additional 12 percent are Methodist. On the other hand, nearly a quarter of white evangelicals (24 percent) either don't know their denomination, call themselves "just Christian" or "just Protestant," or are a non-denominational or inter-denominational Protestant.

Evangelicals in America are predominantly white or African American. About three quarters (74 percent) of evangelicals are white, 15 percent black. Hispanics, on the other hand, while predominantly Christian only make up 5 percent of the evangelical community. Hispanics remain (58 percent) largely Catholic, and an additional 12 percent are Pentecostal. In fact, among Protestants, Hispanics are twice as likely to be Pentecostal than whites (12 percent versus 6 percent).

Just as white evangelicals have many different Protestant denominations, they also come to their faith with a number of different Protestant identities. Roughly a quarter (24 percent) say they are fundamentalist, and another quarter say they are evangelical. An additional 5 percent say they are charismatic, and 10 percent prefer Pentecostal. Most interestingly though, as with their Protestant denomination, over a third of these Christians (34 percent) reject any such label, preferring to say they are none of these, or they don't know.

While they may eschew labels of formal denomination or formal identity, they rally around the concept of being born again. A strong majority (88 percent) of white evangelicals say they are "born-again Christian." This is much greater than Americans in general, where slightly less than half of which (48 percent) self-identify as born-again. Baptists and "just Christians" in particular overwhelmingly self-identify in this way (97 percent).

Among evangelicals, there is inherited religiosity, which is somewhat contradictory for a group that inherently believes they should spread their faith to others. About 63 percent say that at least one of their parents was a born-again Christian when they were growing up.[2] Half say that both of their parents were. One-third of white evangelicals are "converts," that is, neither parent was a born-again Christian when they were growing up. Being an evangelical is a largely non-immigrant phenomenon. Those who are Americans and whose parents were Americans are more than three times as likely to be evangelical Christians as those who are immigrants (34 percent versus 11 percent). Among African-American evangelicals this proportion is even higher. Over three-quarters of African-American evangelicals (77 percent) say at least one parent was a born-again Christian during their youth.

Evangelicals as Part of Mainstream American Culture

White evangelicals face an interesting tension between believing strongly they are part of the mainstream and exerting positive influence upon society while feeling hostility from the mass media and others in the "mainstream." When we speak of "evangelicals under siege" or an "embattled minority," there is some sense of attack and victimization though it is not overwhelming. While these devout Christians express a sense of persecution from the media, they do not choose to merely accept it. They think a great deal about their relationship with mainstream society, and they fight back, both as individuals and as a cohesive group. Socially they produce and patronize popular culture vehicles that expound on their beliefs. Many television and radio stations air exclusively Christian, family-friendly programming. And recent movies such as "The Passion of the Christ," books such as the best-selling "Left Behind" series, and Christian music, such as that from Jars of Clay, DC Talk, or Amy Grant, are examples of a Christian pop culture that is increasingly entering the American mainstream. In their homes, evangelicals avidly patronize these entertainment vehicles and limit their viewing of secular programming they deem offensive.

In spite of their exceptional lives, evangelical Christians steadfastly believe they are part of the American mainstream (75 percent agree). Approximately three-quarters (72 percent) believe that born-again or evangelical Christians have had at least some influence on American society. In general, Americans share this view as well, although perhaps not quite as strongly. Two-thirds (65 percent) agree that evangelicals are part of mainstream society, and about 60 percent acknowledge that evangelicals have had at least some influence on American society.

Yet evangelical Christians reflect a great deal about the relationship between their religion and society, and many are concerned. Evangelicals have strong concerns with moral values, especially with regards to children (71 percent are very worried that children are not learning values and respect). Moreover, over a third (36 percent) of evangelical Christians are very worried that society is becoming too secular, versus 26 percent of Americans in general. The disparity between the two numbers, however, suggests that evangelicals believe that the problem of declining moral values is something more than just a rise of secularism.

Even though most Americans agree that evangelicals are part of the American mainstream, white evangelicals do believe they are an embattled subgroup whose beliefs are given short shrift by others. A strong majority (74 percent) feels as though the mass media are hostile toward their moral and spiritual values. And a similar majority (77 percent) believe they must fight to have their voices heard by the American mainstream. Finally, a near majority (47 percent) believes that evangelical Christians are looked down upon by most Americans. Evangelicals who are more devout in their religious practices feel this more acutely. For example, about 57 percent of white evangelicals who attend church at least once a week feel looked down upon by others (compared with 45 percent of those who attend once a week and 33 percent of those who attend less than once a month). Evangelicals who are "converts," too, feel looked down upon more than other evangelicals (56 percent versus 48 percent of those with born-again parents).

This stands in contrast to how those who are not Christian view themselves and the media and white evangelicals. They do not share this anger, nor do they see the evangelical struggle. Only 30 percent of white non-Christians feel the media are hostile toward their own personal beliefs, and only 38 percent believe evangelicals are looked down upon. Only 36 percent feel that evangelicals have to fight to have their voices be heard.

Like many Americans, evangelicals are extremely worried about the state of moral values in this country. But in this sense, they are not so different from other Americans. About 71 percent are very worried that children are not learning values and respect. This is greater, but only somewhat greater, than the country at large, 63 percent of which are very worried about children and their values. Similarly, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of white evangelicals are very worried about the amount of sex and violence on television, versus slightly less than half (49 percent) of Americans in general.

White evangelicals seem to pay as much attention to popular culture as the rest of Americans. On average, they watch 3.0 hours of television a day; Americans in general watch 3.1. But while these numbers do not greatly differ from the general population, their religion mandates they do something about the content on television they are unhappy with, translating their religious beliefs to interventionist behavior. White evangelical parents are very involved in their kids' lives, and they want to make sure their children are learning the right kinds of values. More than three-quarters (76 percent) of white evangelicals with families have prevented their children from watching television shows or movies with objectionable content, compared with 54 percent of the general population. Similarly, 61 percent of white evangelicals with families have prevented their children from playing violent video games, compared with 47 percent of the general population.

White evangelicals turn to their faith to help them control their own vices. For example, white evangelicals were almost than twice as likely as those who are not evangelical to use their faith to abstain from alcohol (52 percent versus 23 percent). Among white evangelicals, those with more religious intensity, such as frequent church goers, were more likely to say they used their faith to abstain from alcohol (71 percent versus 34 percent of white evangelicals who attend church less than once a month).

Evangelicals and Politics

As we would expect, white evangelicals are quite conservative politically. They share the conservative agenda of the current White House and are strongly supportive of President Bush's re-election bid. They espouse pro-life positions, oppose gay marriage, and believe in doing what it takes to keep America strong as a foreign power. But there are some surprises as well. While a majority of white evangelicals oppose gay marriage, most would prefer to rely on state laws than amending the constitution. Less than half say that a candidate’s support for gay marriage would disqualify him or her from getting their votes.

About 69 percent of white evangelicals are Republican or lean Republican, and not surprisingly, this translates to strong support for George W. Bush's presidential re-election bid. Among likely voters, Bush leads Kerry 51 percent to 44 percent. However, among white evangelicals who are likely voters, Bush has a commanding lead at 74 percent of the vote versus 23 percent for Kerry.

A strong majority (71 percent) believes that born again or evangelical Christians have had at least some influence on the Bush administration. Moreover, those white evangelicals who believe that evangelical Christians have had "a lot" of influence on the Bush administration are much more likely to say they will vote for Bush in 2004 (83 percent for Bush vs. 15 percent for Kerry).

Roughly 1 in 5 white evangelical likely voters are Democrats. Without the reinforcement of church and social ties, they are less engaged politically. White evangelical Democrats are a bit less likely to be registered to vote (81 percent versus 86 percent of Republicans), and are less likely to vote in major elections (64 percent versus 73 percent of Republicans).[4]

For evangelical Democrats, however, partisanship is more important than religion in deciding for whom to cast their vote. Half of white evangelical Democrats rate George W. Bush unfavorably, compared with only 2 percent of white evangelical Republicans. Moreover, 79 percent of white evangelical Democrats believe the country is headed on the wrong track (versus only 27 percent of evangelical Republicans). These white evangelicals are for Kerry (71 percent). Black evangelicals too, traditional Democrats, are staunch Kerry supporters, with three-quarters saying they will vote for Kerry.

Political Engagement

When it comes to political activity, white evangelicals look similar to the general American population. They are only slightly more likely to be registered, and demonstrate a past voting behavior very similar to that of the rest of the country. However, just as with actions in their daily lives, evangelicals look for issues and candidates that expound upon their beliefs. They are somewhat more likely to get involved politically if they see a candidate or an issue that forwards their religious agenda.

White evangelicals are slightly more politically engaged than Americans in general. They are slightly more likely to be registered to vote (82 percent versus 77 percent).[5] They also slightly more likely than Americans in general to report that they vote regularly (65 percent versus 61 percent respectively reported that they voted in both 2000 and 2002).

Among white evangelicals, those who attend church frequently are somewhat more likely to be Republican (63 percent, compared with 44 percent of those who attend less than once a month), and are more likely to support Bush (78 percent, versus 60 percent). There is evidence to suggest that religion motivates white evangelicals toward political activism. For example, white evangelicals are more likely than non-evangelicals to say their religious faith has led them to boycott a product or company (37 versus 18 percent). Similarly, nearly a third (32 percent) of white evangelicals say their religious faith has led them to participate in an election campaign. This, too, is twice as high as non-evangelicals, only 16 percent of whom have participated in an election campaign because of their religious faith.

Although evangelicals are much more likely than Americans in general to give money to charitable organizations and to get involved politically, they are not any more likely to give money to a political organization or candidate. In this respect, they are very much like other Americans, motivated by their religiosity rather than their specific faith. Evangelicals are a little more likely than others to give money to a political organization or candidate if he/she is Christian (36 percent, versus 28 percent of Christians in general and 20 percent of non-Christians). On the other hand, evangelicals are slightly less likely to give money to a non-Christian political organization or candidate (28 percent, versus 31 percent of Christians in general and 41 percent of non-Christians).

The Domestic Agenda

White evangelicals firmly favor a conservative family values agenda and look skeptically upon organizations that typically are associated with liberal causes. However, on key economic issues such as jobs, healthcare, and retirement, white evangelicals share the same concerns as the rest of the country.

On domestic issues, white evangelicals share many of the same concerns as the rest of the country. They are very worried about keeping jobs in this country (54 percent very worried about jobs going overseas to countries like China, Mexico, and India, versus 51 percent of the general population), being able to maintain affordable health care (48 percent very worried, versus 53 percent), and having enough money for retirement (43 percent very worried, versus 47 percent).

White evangelicals share with Americans in general concerns about the economy and retirement (not surprising since they are older). A quarter of white evangelicals identify the economy as a top concern, compared with 31 percent of Americans in general. Older evangelicals are as likely to cite retirement and healthcare (23 percent) as a top concern as they are moral values (20 percent).

Older evangelical women, in particular, are concerned with economic issues. They face more serious economic challenges, such as lower incomes. They are twice as likely as their male counterparts to have household incomes of under $20,000 a year (25 percent versus 10 percent of young men and 9 percent of older men). Many identify as top concerns Social Security (27 percent) and healthcare (24 percent).

While "family values" top the list of the concerns of white evangelicals, it is worth pointing out that it is surprising that moral values are not more dominant. About 36 percent identify moral values as a top concern, compared with 21 percent of Americans in general. Moreover, while they express concern about values, other Americans share the same concerns: 71 percent are very worried that children are not learning values and respect, versus 63 percent of Americans in general.

Nonetheless, their opinions on traditional family values issues are striking. Two-thirds (67 percent) feel that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, versus 45 percent of the general population. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) are very worried that the institution of marriage is under attack, as opposed to 42 percent of the general population. White evangelicals are overwhelmingly opposed to allowing gay marriage (85 percent), and nearly three-quarters (74 percent) are opposed to civil unions, versus 61 percent and 51 percent of the general population, respectively.

In spite of their dislike of gay marriage, though, there is a fair amount of reluctance to amending the U.S. Constitution to banning gay marriage. This suggests that while they are strongly opposed to allowing gays to be married or even form civil unions, there is a certain reluctance to such permanent legislation. Over half (51 percent) of white evangelicals opposing gay marriage do not support such amending the constitution, saying that state laws are sufficient.

Furthermore, gay marriage is not a litmus test of political candidates for many evangelicals. Only half of white evangelicals (50 percent) say they would not vote for a candidate that does not share their views on gay marriage. While this is seemingly inconsistent with the white evangelical family values platform, it is consistent with other studies that have placed gay marriage relatively low on a list of domestic priorities such as the economy, health care, retirement and education. For example, in a recent poll from the Democracy Corps, respondents who were likely voters overwhelmingly chose a statement that prioritizes choosing a candidate over jobs and healthcare as opposed to gay marriage (70 percent versus 24 percent).[6] Consistent with this study, they found that 54 percent of devout evangelicals would use gay marriage as a litmus test for selecting a candidate. Among African American evangelicals the number drops to 37 percent, suggesting there are limits of the platform of the religious right among African Americans.

The Foreign Policy Agenda

White evangelicals prioritize the "strength" issues when it comes to the United States' foreign policy agenda. In this way, their political attitudes seem to be more influenced by their political conservatism than the altruism of spreading their faith or doing God's work abroad. When it comes to international priorities, they think first of those that will keep America safe from foreign aggression. Homeland security and the war on terrorism are the top priorities for white evangelicals, rather than reaching out to the disadvantaged or even protecting the rights of religious minorities such as Christians in other countries.

Foreign policy objectives such as keeping America's military strong (42 percent extremely important) controlling biological, chemical and nuclear weapons around the world (35 percent extremely important) and fighting global terrorism (30 percent extremely important) are of critical importance to white evangelicals and considered higher priorities than activities that would protect the rights of other religious minorities (14 percent extremely important) or other altruistic acts, such as fighting global disease (21 percent extremely important), contributing to international relief efforts for famines and natural disasters (14 percent extremely important).

White evangelicals are much more decidedly pro-Israel than Americans in general, suggesting sympathy toward allies in the war on terrorism and democracies in the Middle East. Over half (55 percent) think it is extremely or very important we show support for Israel, compared with 40 percent of Americans in general. Evangelical Baptists are much more supportive of Israel than evangelical Methodists (66 percent versus 38 percent). There is also more support for Israel among fundamentalists (63 percent) and Pentecostals (67 percent) than self-identified evangelicals (55 percent) or those without such a Protestant identity (50 percent). This, however, is largely driven by their conservatism. Among white evangelicals, political conservatives are more than three times as likely to be supportive of Israel than moderate counterparts (25 percent versus 8 percent).

However, evangelicals are no different from the general population in their support of Palestinian rights: they offer slightly less support than the general population (21 percent versus 24 percent). This, again, is generally driven though their conservatism. White evangelical Democrats are more supportive of Palestine than evangelical Republicans (31 versus 18 percent), and are similar to Democrats in general (also 31 percent).

Conclusion

White evangelicals represent a diverse subset of Americans who are able with a powerful, consistent, and united voice to articulate the issues that are of most importance to them. Their interests tend to revolve around the interrelated issues of morality, family, national safety, and economic security. Their power comes from a daily personal commitment to their faith and by surrounding themselves every day with people and media that further inform, clarify, and reinforce their existing beliefs. They are deeply committed to their religious beliefs and determined to communicate them to the world. To this white evangelicals add a great deal of community outreach, simultaneously trying to improve the areas in which they live, provide a good Christian example to others, especially their children, and abide by their religious mandate to spread the faith.

Yet underlying this all is a desire and a need to be recognized as part of the American mainstream. Evangelicals motivate each other by thinking of themselves, much as the first Christians did as an embattled minority, marginalized at best or persecuted at worst for their religious beliefs. While other Americans may not necessarily see them in this way, what is most important is that this is how evangelical Christians see themselves. And it is their shared profound dissatisfaction with aspects of the American mainstream that gives them cause to fight to be heard by the American mainstream.

April 5, 2004
Religion and Ethics NewsWeekly
Anna Greenberg and Jennifer Berktold

[1] This memo is based on a survey of Americans, with oversamples of white evangelicals, African Americans, and Hispanics. The total sample size is 1,610 respondents and it has a margin of error of +/- 2.5%. The survey was conducted between March 16 and April 4th and employed random digit dial technology.

[2] This is perhaps less than expected. In the General Social Survey, for example, roughly 91 percent of Protestants say their mother was Protestant when growing up and 80 percent say their father was Protestant when growing up.

[3] Due to social desirability effects, especially in a survey about religion, respondents may over report their actual attendance.

[4] As is the case with church attendance, self-reported estimates of intention to vote may be somewhat inflated due to effects of social desirability.

[5] Self-reported estimates of voter registration may be somewhat inflated due to effects of social desirability.

[6] Democracy Corps survey of 1004 likely voters, conducted March 16-21, 2004. Question wording: "Now I'm going to read you some pairs of statements. As I read each pair, please tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own views, even if neither is exactly right. "This year, jobs and health care are more important to me than gay marriage when deciding on a candidate" and "If a candidate is open to legalizing gay marriages, I'm against him no matter what.""