What do you think?
Rate this book
With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America
The rise of the Religious Right is one of the most important political and cultural stories of our time. To many, this controversial movement threatens to upset the nation's delicate balance of religious and secular interests. To others, the Religious Right is valiantly struggling to preserve religious liberty and to prove itself as the last, best hope to save America's soul. In With God on Our Side --the first balanced account of conservative Christians' impact on post-war politics--William Martin paints a vivid and authoritative portrait of America's most powerful political interest group.
Although its members now number between forty and sixty million people, the Religious Right has not always carried the tremendous--and growing--political clout it enjoys today. A hundred years ago, scattered groups of conservative Christians worked fervently to spread the Gospel, but their involvement in politics was marginal. Early in this century, however, a series of charismatic and ambitious leaders began transforming the movement; by the election of John F. Kennedy as our first Catholic president, the Religious Right had found its voice. Politics and religion began mixing as never before. From Richard Nixon's strategic manipulation of Graham's religious influence in the 1970s, to Ronald Reagan's association with Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1980s, to the Christian Coalition's emergence as a slick, sophisticated political machine, the line separating the pulpit from the presidency became increasingly blurred. Now, preachers such as Graham, Falwell, and Pat Robertson preside over ministries so vast and well organized that most politicians can ill afford to ignore their views--or lose their votes.
In recent years, the Religious Right's political influence has propelled it into spheres beyond pure politics. Race relations, abortion and reproductive rights, school curricula, the nature and role of the family--conservative Christians have embraced all of these socially charged issues, and their activism has irrevocably altered the way America confronts its thorniest problems. How does a free society draw the line between Church and State without removing religious conviction from public life? What motivates individual Americans to do battle in the culture wars? Most importantly, when politicians and religiously motivated activists join forces, who holds the reins?
Drawing on over 100 new interviews with key figures in the movement, William Martin brilliantly captures the spirit of the age as he explores both sides of
this dramatic debate. Written in conjunction with the producers of the public television series of the same name, this landmark book is essential reading for all Americans--conservative and liberal, fundamentalist and atheist--who care about the spiritual health and political future of our country.
Although its members now number between forty and sixty million people, the Religious Right has not always carried the tremendous--and growing--political clout it enjoys today. A hundred years ago, scattered groups of conservative Christians worked fervently to spread the Gospel, but their involvement in politics was marginal. Early in this century, however, a series of charismatic and ambitious leaders began transforming the movement; by the election of John F. Kennedy as our first Catholic president, the Religious Right had found its voice. Politics and religion began mixing as never before. From Richard Nixon's strategic manipulation of Graham's religious influence in the 1970s, to Ronald Reagan's association with Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1980s, to the Christian Coalition's emergence as a slick, sophisticated political machine, the line separating the pulpit from the presidency became increasingly blurred. Now, preachers such as Graham, Falwell, and Pat Robertson preside over ministries so vast and well organized that most politicians can ill afford to ignore their views--or lose their votes.
In recent years, the Religious Right's political influence has propelled it into spheres beyond pure politics. Race relations, abortion and reproductive rights, school curricula, the nature and role of the family--conservative Christians have embraced all of these socially charged issues, and their activism has irrevocably altered the way America confronts its thorniest problems. How does a free society draw the line between Church and State without removing religious conviction from public life? What motivates individual Americans to do battle in the culture wars? Most importantly, when politicians and religiously motivated activists join forces, who holds the reins?
Drawing on over 100 new interviews with key figures in the movement, William Martin brilliantly captures the spirit of the age as he explores both sides of
this dramatic debate. Written in conjunction with the producers of the public television series of the same name, this landmark book is essential reading for all Americans--conservative and liberal, fundamentalist and atheist--who care about the spiritual health and political future of our country.
436 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1996
6 people are currently reading
394 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
July 4, 2012
William Martin, a sociologist at Rice University, wrote this companion piece to a PBS series (that I have not seen) that surveys the history of the mostly white, Protestant Evangelical church community and its role in the political landscape over the past forty years, with a brief analysis of its roots in the early twentieth century. Ironically, it was self-professed evangelical and born-again Christian Jimmy Carter who raised the ire that coalesced the religious right movement.
In an attempt to force independent schools, many self-labeled as Christian schools, to accept non-white students, he had urged the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of any school that was racially segregated. Attempts by the religious right – for lack of a better term, for as Martin shows, there were often huge gulfs in beliefs among the so-called religious opposition – to organize followers around issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and other issues had failed on a national level, but when their pocketbook was threatened, they came alive. Removal of tax-exempt status would have inevitably raised tuition and cast the specter of government control over what they could teach or whom they could admit into their schools, and this was anathema. The abortion issue failed to energize the right after Roe v. Wade (Jerry Falwell did not even preach a sermon on it until 1978), and the author speculates that a major reason was the right’s anti-Catholic attitude. Anything the Catholics were against might be OK and anything they were in favor of should be mistrusted. In general, evangelicals were very worried about JFK’s ascendancy to the presidency, fearing he would come under the control of the dreaded pope.
Billy Graham, a major figure in the evangelical movement, initially courted political figures, becoming good friends with whomever was in power, but especially Richard Nixon. It was this association and his shock at Nixon’s immorality after listening to the Nixon White House tapes that lead Graham to warn other evangelicals, against mixing religion with politics. But power continued to attract a wide group of evangelicals and Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, ostensibly dismayed by the country’s descent into moral turpitude, delivered the election to Ronald Reagan. Falwell’s star has waned considerably, and he has been replaced by Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed although little of their social agenda has been enacted into law, the Kansas anti-evolution textbook stance being perhaps a glaring exception. Martin treats all the characters of the movement sympathetically and objectively, although he’s not afraid to skewer hypocrisy when it appears, and Jerry Falwell’s obvious racism and subsequent dis-ingenuousness about it clearly annoy the author. It’s an important story and well told. Clearly, many of the people involved have honest concerns for a variety of issues that disturb them, and Martin delineates all the sides various of battles including the Kanawha County West Virginia textbook war, the disagreement over how AIDS patients should be treated, and the sex education battles of Anaheim, California.
What I found most disturbing was not the political activism or concern of individuals, but the callous and unprincipled adoption of particular issues by those seeking pure political power. There is also a disturbing attitude on both sides of the issue that there is only one right way of looking at the world and, by God, you better look at it my way or else. It brings to mind the witch hunts of Salem, the Inquisition, and McCarthy, to mention but a few. We must hope and work together so that those periods will never surface again. What the evangelicals and religious right fail to recognize is how harmful any relationship with government can be. That was the genius of Thomas Jefferson in insisting on a separation of the two. Many modern observers have pointed out that religion thrives in this country precisely because there is no official link to whomever is in power. Billy Graham recognized this too late as he read how he had been manipulated by Nixon for Nixon’s own ends. So it’s doubly ironic that the only self-professed born-again Christian president, Jimmy Carter, who recognized the dangers inherent in a political-religious alliance, was such a disappointment to those evangelicals who had championed his election.
In an attempt to force independent schools, many self-labeled as Christian schools, to accept non-white students, he had urged the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of any school that was racially segregated. Attempts by the religious right – for lack of a better term, for as Martin shows, there were often huge gulfs in beliefs among the so-called religious opposition – to organize followers around issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and other issues had failed on a national level, but when their pocketbook was threatened, they came alive. Removal of tax-exempt status would have inevitably raised tuition and cast the specter of government control over what they could teach or whom they could admit into their schools, and this was anathema. The abortion issue failed to energize the right after Roe v. Wade (Jerry Falwell did not even preach a sermon on it until 1978), and the author speculates that a major reason was the right’s anti-Catholic attitude. Anything the Catholics were against might be OK and anything they were in favor of should be mistrusted. In general, evangelicals were very worried about JFK’s ascendancy to the presidency, fearing he would come under the control of the dreaded pope.
Billy Graham, a major figure in the evangelical movement, initially courted political figures, becoming good friends with whomever was in power, but especially Richard Nixon. It was this association and his shock at Nixon’s immorality after listening to the Nixon White House tapes that lead Graham to warn other evangelicals, against mixing religion with politics. But power continued to attract a wide group of evangelicals and Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, ostensibly dismayed by the country’s descent into moral turpitude, delivered the election to Ronald Reagan. Falwell’s star has waned considerably, and he has been replaced by Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed although little of their social agenda has been enacted into law, the Kansas anti-evolution textbook stance being perhaps a glaring exception. Martin treats all the characters of the movement sympathetically and objectively, although he’s not afraid to skewer hypocrisy when it appears, and Jerry Falwell’s obvious racism and subsequent dis-ingenuousness about it clearly annoy the author. It’s an important story and well told. Clearly, many of the people involved have honest concerns for a variety of issues that disturb them, and Martin delineates all the sides various of battles including the Kanawha County West Virginia textbook war, the disagreement over how AIDS patients should be treated, and the sex education battles of Anaheim, California.
What I found most disturbing was not the political activism or concern of individuals, but the callous and unprincipled adoption of particular issues by those seeking pure political power. There is also a disturbing attitude on both sides of the issue that there is only one right way of looking at the world and, by God, you better look at it my way or else. It brings to mind the witch hunts of Salem, the Inquisition, and McCarthy, to mention but a few. We must hope and work together so that those periods will never surface again. What the evangelicals and religious right fail to recognize is how harmful any relationship with government can be. That was the genius of Thomas Jefferson in insisting on a separation of the two. Many modern observers have pointed out that religion thrives in this country precisely because there is no official link to whomever is in power. Billy Graham recognized this too late as he read how he had been manipulated by Nixon for Nixon’s own ends. So it’s doubly ironic that the only self-professed born-again Christian president, Jimmy Carter, who recognized the dangers inherent in a political-religious alliance, was such a disappointment to those evangelicals who had championed his election.
September 24, 2017
I must have feared that God would strike lightening at my neck while I sleep if I didn't finish this book or something, I tried so hard and so miserably to slog through it. It is not terrible, but not terribly interesting either. I guess I tried so hard because I find reading about how ridiculously people can behave is quite fascinating.
I'm only vaguely familiar with many of the names in the book which are probably household names to most Americans, like Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell.The book contains tons of historical anecdotes and a bit of explanation of the social dynamics that drove the evangelical movement throughout history. But the style doesn't appeal to me much, very dry and slightly incoherent.
In the end, after spending so long on this book, I decided I'd liberate myself from the misery of reading it and accept a roasted neck for my sin. But let me tell you what I think of what I've read so far. If there's anything that leaves an impression from this book, it's the utter hypocrisy of a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America. Many of them are so paranoid about how a secularist society "infringes" on their economic and religious freedom (which often means taking away the privileges that Christians had long enjoyed for absolutely no rational reason). Yet, they go mad at giving others freedom, when it comes to abortion, gays rights, sex education, civil rights, things that usually don't affect them directly apart from hurting their bigoted, self-righteous egos and making them lose sleep over the accelerated end of the world.
And it seems to be a terrifyingly pessimistic philosophy (if it deserves the name at all), there seems to be this constant fear that society is going to collapse, moral values are decaying, patriotism is going down the toilet etc. Maybe taking away someone else's freedom saves them from this sense of powerlessness when facing the inevitable end of the world? They preach about love, in the very narrow sense of the word, that is love for people like them, white, Christian, family value people. Love that does not derive from empathy and our capacity to project suffering on another human being, but from Scripture, which itself a horribly inconsistent and morally questionable text.
It's worrying that they have a quite powerful political influence within the American government and among the population (perhaps I'll give it the last try with the chapter on the Bush administration). I don't know to what extent the Bush administration devised foreign policy based on God's advice, but if that was the case, then it is frightening, because religion shields any claims from rational debate. Fundamentalist Christianity seems to have a surviving mechanism that allows it to persist like an insidious disease: a sense of community, security, certainty, hope. those things help it cover up its morally corrupt deceit. my american friends probably know about this much better than me.
oh well, so much for Tom Paine's hope that Christianity would go away in 30 years...
I'm only vaguely familiar with many of the names in the book which are probably household names to most Americans, like Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell.The book contains tons of historical anecdotes and a bit of explanation of the social dynamics that drove the evangelical movement throughout history. But the style doesn't appeal to me much, very dry and slightly incoherent.
In the end, after spending so long on this book, I decided I'd liberate myself from the misery of reading it and accept a roasted neck for my sin. But let me tell you what I think of what I've read so far. If there's anything that leaves an impression from this book, it's the utter hypocrisy of a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America. Many of them are so paranoid about how a secularist society "infringes" on their economic and religious freedom (which often means taking away the privileges that Christians had long enjoyed for absolutely no rational reason). Yet, they go mad at giving others freedom, when it comes to abortion, gays rights, sex education, civil rights, things that usually don't affect them directly apart from hurting their bigoted, self-righteous egos and making them lose sleep over the accelerated end of the world.
And it seems to be a terrifyingly pessimistic philosophy (if it deserves the name at all), there seems to be this constant fear that society is going to collapse, moral values are decaying, patriotism is going down the toilet etc. Maybe taking away someone else's freedom saves them from this sense of powerlessness when facing the inevitable end of the world? They preach about love, in the very narrow sense of the word, that is love for people like them, white, Christian, family value people. Love that does not derive from empathy and our capacity to project suffering on another human being, but from Scripture, which itself a horribly inconsistent and morally questionable text.
It's worrying that they have a quite powerful political influence within the American government and among the population (perhaps I'll give it the last try with the chapter on the Bush administration). I don't know to what extent the Bush administration devised foreign policy based on God's advice, but if that was the case, then it is frightening, because religion shields any claims from rational debate. Fundamentalist Christianity seems to have a surviving mechanism that allows it to persist like an insidious disease: a sense of community, security, certainty, hope. those things help it cover up its morally corrupt deceit. my american friends probably know about this much better than me.
oh well, so much for Tom Paine's hope that Christianity would go away in 30 years...
September 10, 2010
Excellent history and analysis of the rise of the Christian right. I learned quite a bit. This book is not written with a political bias--the author merely presents the facts and does not comment on them. However if you are an atheist reader like myself the book was a horrifying wake up call to the power of religious conservatism.
March 26, 2024
AN EXCELLENT HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE MOVEMENT
William Martin wrote in the ‘Author’s Note’ section of this 1996 book, “This book is the companion volume to a PBS documentary series of the same name… In general, the book tracks the documentary series’ story of the rise of the Religious Right, though almost always at greater length… the words of interviewees are presented more fully in the book than in the series… It is probably most accurate to think of the book and the television series as two different, but closely coordinated and complementary, products based on the same body of material… neither the documentary nor this book takes an adversarial approach. Our mutual aim has been to represent, as accurately and fairly as we are able, the views and statements of those who have graciously agreed to cooperate in this project. They may, of course, be surprised at our interpretation or at the way their words appear and sound in a larger context… A small number, most notably Dr. James Dobson and Bill Bright, declined to participate in the project, for fear of having their words misrepresented or misconstrued. We regret that decision, because we feel it is a loss to the historical record.” (Pg. ix-x)
He recounts of Billy Graham, “In 1953, after the sponsoring committee of his Chattanooga crusade balked as his demand that seating be open to all, he went to the crusade tabernacle and personally removed the ropes marking the section reserved for blacks… he never again permitted any of his crusades to be segregated, and he began to call on the church to demonstrate its commitment to racial justice and equality. He would never be comfortable with violent protest… but neither would he ever retreat from the higher ground he had seized.” (Pg. 43)
He notes, “In 1958, [Jerry Falwell] preached a sermon, titled ‘Segregation and Integration: Which?’ in which he asserted that integration was … wrong … to his credit, Falwell makes no attempt to hide what he did… It is difficult to know just when Jerry Falwell changed his mind or his public position on integration, but [his] Church remained segregated until 1968, and the first baptism of an African-American person appears not to have occurred until 1971.” (Pg. 57-58)
He points out, “nearly all conservatives of the day disapproved of civil disobedience of the sort engineered by Martin Luther King Jr. … Even Billy Graham… who counted King as a friend, cautioned that Freedom Rides and other confrontational measures might create resistance that could never be broken down… That summer [1963], Graham not only declined to take part in the … March on Washington, but elected to challenge what was perhaps Dr. King’s most arresting image… ‘Only when Christ comes again,’ [Graham] said, ‘will the little white children of Atlanta walk hand in hand with little black children.’” (Pg. 79-80)
He observes, “Though its primary emphasis has always been on winning individual souls, Campus Crusade had been from its beginning a politically conservative organization… It also reflected the strong convictions of its authoritarian leader, Bill Bright, who flatly told staffers that ‘this is not a democratic organization’ and explicitly regarded criticism of himself, his lieutenants, or the ministry as ‘evidence of disloyalty to Christ’ and warned that such disloyalty ‘shall be accepted as an act of resignation.’ … loyalty to Bright effectively ruled out a liberal political stance.” (Pg. 91)
He notes that initially, “Evangelical and fundamental Protestants, many of whom now consider abortion a litmus test of extraordinary importance, had little to say about it one way of the other… Jerry Falwell did not preach a sermon on abortion until 1978. Harold O.J. Brown… has suggested that lingering anti-Catholic bias may have played a role in their late espousal of the pro-life position.” (Pg. 193)
He recounts that after C. Everett Koop, and Francis Schaeffer and his son Franky, made the film and book, ‘Whatever happened to the Human Race?’ “the film circulated widely in evangelical circles, with tremendous impact. Conservative Christians not only developed a revulsion for abortion but, as Koop put it, they also ‘began to associate the need for tying their faith to social action.’” (Pg. 194)
He explains, “Reagan’s record would seem to have marked him as an unlikely suitor. He had divorced and remarried, his performance as a parent was clearly sub-par, his children were hardly models of fundamentalist piety… As governor of California, he had signed relatively liberal abortion measures… His 1979 tax return revealed that contributed less than one percent of his adjusted gross income to charitable and religious causes… during the 1976 primary campaign, Charles Colson remembered an incident when … a reporter … asked, ‘Are you born again?’ …’Reagan shrugged… He didn’t know that that meant.’” (Pg. 208)
He notes, “Though most evangelicals, whatever private feelings, felt no compulsion to take overt action against gays, there were occasional sorry episodes of intolerance by professed Christians, reflecting a general increase in anti-gay violence.” (Pg 247)
He points out, “the religious broadcaster who showed the greatest empathy for people with AIDS seems to have been the much maligned and ridiculed Tammy Faye Bakker, who insisted on having AIDS patients on her television program, ‘Tammy’s House Party’ and wept---no surprise---as she spoke of a young man who had told her the saddest thing about his plight was that his parents and sister were afraid to touch him.” (Pg. 254-255)
About the efforts of C. Everett Koop (now Surgeon General) to promote safe sexual practices to reduce the spread of AIDS, gay activist and Author Randy Shilts stated that “it took an ultra-conservative fundamentalist … to credibly call for all of America to take the [AIDS] epidemic seriously at last. Unwittingly, the Reagan administration had produced a certifiable AIDS hero.’” (Pg. 256)
He says of the “remarkable organization known as Promise Keepers… providing men with the opportunity to share intimate details of their lives with four or five close friends who are willing to hold them accountable to high standards of spiritual discipline, personal morality, and family responsibility. Instead of becoming a rival to churches, Promise Keepers has proved to be an effective means of plugging men back into their home congregations on a higher voltage line.” (Pg. 350)
He concludes, “We cannot separate religion and politics. The question is how they are to be related in such a way as to maintain the pluralism that has served us to well. The core of that pluralism is not the dogma that all opinions are equally valid but the conviction that civility and the public peace are important, that respect for minorities and their opinions is a crucial element of a democratic society, and that, however persuaded I am of the rightness of my position, I may still, after all, be wrong.” (Pg. 385)
This is a reasonably well-balanced, objective treatment of this history of this entire movement.
William Martin wrote in the ‘Author’s Note’ section of this 1996 book, “This book is the companion volume to a PBS documentary series of the same name… In general, the book tracks the documentary series’ story of the rise of the Religious Right, though almost always at greater length… the words of interviewees are presented more fully in the book than in the series… It is probably most accurate to think of the book and the television series as two different, but closely coordinated and complementary, products based on the same body of material… neither the documentary nor this book takes an adversarial approach. Our mutual aim has been to represent, as accurately and fairly as we are able, the views and statements of those who have graciously agreed to cooperate in this project. They may, of course, be surprised at our interpretation or at the way their words appear and sound in a larger context… A small number, most notably Dr. James Dobson and Bill Bright, declined to participate in the project, for fear of having their words misrepresented or misconstrued. We regret that decision, because we feel it is a loss to the historical record.” (Pg. ix-x)
He recounts of Billy Graham, “In 1953, after the sponsoring committee of his Chattanooga crusade balked as his demand that seating be open to all, he went to the crusade tabernacle and personally removed the ropes marking the section reserved for blacks… he never again permitted any of his crusades to be segregated, and he began to call on the church to demonstrate its commitment to racial justice and equality. He would never be comfortable with violent protest… but neither would he ever retreat from the higher ground he had seized.” (Pg. 43)
He notes, “In 1958, [Jerry Falwell] preached a sermon, titled ‘Segregation and Integration: Which?’ in which he asserted that integration was … wrong … to his credit, Falwell makes no attempt to hide what he did… It is difficult to know just when Jerry Falwell changed his mind or his public position on integration, but [his] Church remained segregated until 1968, and the first baptism of an African-American person appears not to have occurred until 1971.” (Pg. 57-58)
He points out, “nearly all conservatives of the day disapproved of civil disobedience of the sort engineered by Martin Luther King Jr. … Even Billy Graham… who counted King as a friend, cautioned that Freedom Rides and other confrontational measures might create resistance that could never be broken down… That summer [1963], Graham not only declined to take part in the … March on Washington, but elected to challenge what was perhaps Dr. King’s most arresting image… ‘Only when Christ comes again,’ [Graham] said, ‘will the little white children of Atlanta walk hand in hand with little black children.’” (Pg. 79-80)
He observes, “Though its primary emphasis has always been on winning individual souls, Campus Crusade had been from its beginning a politically conservative organization… It also reflected the strong convictions of its authoritarian leader, Bill Bright, who flatly told staffers that ‘this is not a democratic organization’ and explicitly regarded criticism of himself, his lieutenants, or the ministry as ‘evidence of disloyalty to Christ’ and warned that such disloyalty ‘shall be accepted as an act of resignation.’ … loyalty to Bright effectively ruled out a liberal political stance.” (Pg. 91)
He notes that initially, “Evangelical and fundamental Protestants, many of whom now consider abortion a litmus test of extraordinary importance, had little to say about it one way of the other… Jerry Falwell did not preach a sermon on abortion until 1978. Harold O.J. Brown… has suggested that lingering anti-Catholic bias may have played a role in their late espousal of the pro-life position.” (Pg. 193)
He recounts that after C. Everett Koop, and Francis Schaeffer and his son Franky, made the film and book, ‘Whatever happened to the Human Race?’ “the film circulated widely in evangelical circles, with tremendous impact. Conservative Christians not only developed a revulsion for abortion but, as Koop put it, they also ‘began to associate the need for tying their faith to social action.’” (Pg. 194)
He explains, “Reagan’s record would seem to have marked him as an unlikely suitor. He had divorced and remarried, his performance as a parent was clearly sub-par, his children were hardly models of fundamentalist piety… As governor of California, he had signed relatively liberal abortion measures… His 1979 tax return revealed that contributed less than one percent of his adjusted gross income to charitable and religious causes… during the 1976 primary campaign, Charles Colson remembered an incident when … a reporter … asked, ‘Are you born again?’ …’Reagan shrugged… He didn’t know that that meant.’” (Pg. 208)
He notes, “Though most evangelicals, whatever private feelings, felt no compulsion to take overt action against gays, there were occasional sorry episodes of intolerance by professed Christians, reflecting a general increase in anti-gay violence.” (Pg 247)
He points out, “the religious broadcaster who showed the greatest empathy for people with AIDS seems to have been the much maligned and ridiculed Tammy Faye Bakker, who insisted on having AIDS patients on her television program, ‘Tammy’s House Party’ and wept---no surprise---as she spoke of a young man who had told her the saddest thing about his plight was that his parents and sister were afraid to touch him.” (Pg. 254-255)
About the efforts of C. Everett Koop (now Surgeon General) to promote safe sexual practices to reduce the spread of AIDS, gay activist and Author Randy Shilts stated that “it took an ultra-conservative fundamentalist … to credibly call for all of America to take the [AIDS] epidemic seriously at last. Unwittingly, the Reagan administration had produced a certifiable AIDS hero.’” (Pg. 256)
He says of the “remarkable organization known as Promise Keepers… providing men with the opportunity to share intimate details of their lives with four or five close friends who are willing to hold them accountable to high standards of spiritual discipline, personal morality, and family responsibility. Instead of becoming a rival to churches, Promise Keepers has proved to be an effective means of plugging men back into their home congregations on a higher voltage line.” (Pg. 350)
He concludes, “We cannot separate religion and politics. The question is how they are to be related in such a way as to maintain the pluralism that has served us to well. The core of that pluralism is not the dogma that all opinions are equally valid but the conviction that civility and the public peace are important, that respect for minorities and their opinions is a crucial element of a democratic society, and that, however persuaded I am of the rightness of my position, I may still, after all, be wrong.” (Pg. 385)
This is a reasonably well-balanced, objective treatment of this history of this entire movement.
November 9, 2007
creepy but repetitive
May 29, 2009
Don't love the way it's written, but the content will scare the hell out of you. Read Eric Hoffer's "True Believer" after reading this and look at the nature of mass movements.
Read
June 12, 2010Honestly this is one of the most powerful books I read in 2009. I wish everyone I know would read it so we could discuss. It was suuuch a page turner. So, I don't know where to start, other than to say that it is a wonderful history of the development of the Religious Right, told in very nice, bite-sized chapters of close-up cases. The intro and epilogue, though, are weird--and show that either the editor was terrible or the author had no idea who their audience would be. Suddenly, at the end of an extremely powerful book about religion and politics in the 1960s-late 80s, we get a little ditty on the constitutional freedom of religion. Whaaat? I laughed. It's like getting served skittles for desert after fillet mignon. I recommend this for non-historians as well as historians.
May 8, 2012
I am no fan of the evangelical/conservative movement but this author (William Martin) piqued my interest because he presented the information in a much more nonjudgmental manner than I probably could have. Definitely an interesting read that shows you how politicized the Religious Right became and some of the tactics they used, rightly or wrongly. My only beef with the book is that I expected much more information on George W. Bush given than his picture is the most pronounced on the cover but alas, I got two pages in the afterword (that was written years after the book was actually published). I will be holding on to this book for a while...
November 18, 2011
An excellent treatment of perhaps the most important domestic political trend of the last 30 years: the rise in political power of evangelicals, and the movement of that huge group towards a steadfast political alliance with the Republican Party.
February 23, 2008
A good oveview of the evangelical role in Politics from the turn of the century through the early 90's. It's very readable and allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.
Read
June 9, 2008I read this book, as research for my senior thesis in college.
November 17, 2008
An awesome read about the role of religious right in America. I thought it was an informative and balance read.
October 14, 2016
I find this topic very interesting. I think Martin did a good job sketching the movement.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews