The GOP’s family values conundrum

By Michelle Laque Johnson

If you survey the media landscape these days, you might conclude that things look grim for conservatives and those who adhere to Christian values, or what are now called family values.

Among other things, we have the “Chosen One,” as President Barack Obama is known to his followers, running around the world claiming that, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

The Chosen One, who claims to be a Christian, also had the symbol for Jesus covered up before he deigned to give a speech at Georgetown University.

These actions were followed by other events which might seem unrelated except for the “lessons” which some are drawing from them. I’m talking about the extramarital affairs of Nevada Senator John Ensign and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, which The Washington Times reported as having many in the Republican Party questioning its focus on family values.

“If you are going to hold up these issues, you have to live by them,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told Reporter S.A. Miller in a June 25 article. As noted in the article, “Republicans’ family-values platform often invites charges of hypocrisy.”

So, on the one hand, we have Obama’s speeches, which fueled all sorts of press, including Newsweek magazine’s cover story entitled “The End of Christian America.” On the other hand, we have some in the Republican Party arguing that it should abandon its family values platform because some of its members find it hard to live up to those values.

I would like to suggest that there is a danger here, but it’s not what the Chosen One or frightened Republicans think it is. To make my point, I would like to tell you the true story of Dr. Bernard Nathanson. His story is relevant because it reveals the set of tactics used in 1968—tactics being used today—to convince Americans, who were overwhelmingly pro-life at the time, that abortion should be legalized. In only five years, Mr. Nathanson, one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), and his colleagues managed to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn hundreds of years of precedent by legalizing abortion in this country. These same tactics are being used today to pressure Christians into believing that they and their family values are in the minority when the exact opposite is true.

So just how did NARAL accomplish its unholy mission? Fortunately, we don’t have to guess. Mr. Nathanson tells us in a chilling testimonial, which can be found in his book, “Aborting America,” on audiotapes, and, in short form, on the Internet. He cites three key tactics.

The first was capturing the media, which was surprisingly easy. Mr. Nathanson tells us that NARAL fabricated polls saying that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion, when almost none were, and the media published them. Says Mr. Nathanson, “This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.”

NARAL also made up polls which convinced Americans that 10,000 women were dying each year as a result of a million abortions— all of which was untrue, Mr. Nathanson said. That’s not all. NARAL also told the media “that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the number of abortions has increased by 1500 percent since legalization.”

The idea that America is not a Christian nation is another lie, which Christians should not buy. Christians are in the majority—and with margins that any politician, including the Chosen One, would envy. More than three-quarters of Americans (76 percent) identify themselves as Christians, according to the American Religion Identification Survey, part of a report from The Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut.

True, we are seeing a rise in those with “no religion,” and that is disturbing. But the Christian majority should see this as a call to evangelize, not to give in to the “inevitable.”

Tactic number two was to play “the Catholic card.” Says Mr. Nathanson, “We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its ‘socially backward ideas,’” telling the media that most Catholics favored abortion law reform and that anyone who opposed abortion “must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy.”

All of this was, of course, untrue. Think this “divide and conquer” strategy is not happening today? At 25 percent of the population, Catholics make up the largest group of Christians and, like most Christian churches, the Catholic Church remains an ardent foe of abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia.

Perhaps that’s why Mr. Obama recently appointed Harry Knox, a gay-rights activist to the Faith-Based Initiative Board, a man who called Pope Benedict XVI and certain Catholic bishops “discredited leaders” because (big shock) they oppose same-sex marriage. This same gay-rights activist called the Knights of Columbus “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression.” Mr. Obama’s reaction to the controversy this appointment created? He announced he was “comfortable” with his choice.

Christian sects may have their differences, but if ever there was a time in history for Christians of all persuasions to unite, it is now.

The third tactic used by NARAL was the “denigration and suppression of all scientific evidence that life begins at conception.” Says Mr. Nathanson, “A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one; anything but a scientific one. Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protections and safeguards that any of us enjoy.”

Mr. Obama used this tactic when he famously said that the question of when life begins was “above his pay grade.” He uses it when he says the one thing we can all agree on is the need to limit abortions, but institutes policies which do the exact opposite.

One by one, Mr. Obama and his liberal supporters have taken Christian values—family values—and tried to make Christians feel they are not just wrong but unChristian for holding them.

The lessons of history are clear. Christians allow this to happen at their own peril. For whatever reason, the Democratic Party, which used to be the party of most Catholics and many other Christians, has largely become the Party of Death. Republicans, flawed as they are, at least have a platform that affirms life and marriage. As it stands now, it is the only alternative for a committed Christian, many of whom are becoming disenchanted with Mr. Obama’s increasingly clear agenda.

To back away from this platform because some members cannot live up to its high ideals is to back away from its strength. There are many reasons the Republican Party lost this past election but its support of traditional family values was not one of them. The enthusiasm generated by the candidacy of Sarah Palin—and the vehemency of the attacks against her by the left—proved that.

As conservatives have heard from liberals ad nauseum, elections have consequences. So does faith.

If Christians remain committed and do what Christians are called to do— evangelize their brothers and sisters by living their faith—America will remain exactly what Mr. Obama and his liberal supporters don’t want you to think it is: a Christian nation that votes its values—family values.

-Michelle Laque Johnson is director of communications for EWTN, the largest religious media network in the world. The views expressed are solely her own, and do not necessarily reflect those of EWTN.