“Separation of church and state” is the proclaimed purpose of an organization called People for the American Way (PAW), founded by TV scriptwriter Norman Lear and now headed by ex-Congressman John Buchanan. PAW presumes to pass judgment on policy, proposals, and people depending on how scrupulously they separate all mention of religion from affairs of government, politics, and school.
PAW is paranoid about preachers speaking out on politics; PAW fears that preachers plan to convert America into a theocracy. PAW questions their motives, uses the guilt-by-association technique, and carries personal vendettas by conjuring up hobgoblins of religious dictators.
Riding on Norman Lear’s wide contacts, PAW spokesmen enjoy wide access to the media. When PAW issues an editorializing, advocacy press release about a non-event, it immediately becomes a wire service story. When PAW creates editorial TV spots attacking the religious New Right, PAW has no trouble getting television to carry them (unlike the experience of Peter Grace whose anti-deficit-spending spot was refused by the networks).
When PAW goes on a search-and-destroy mission, it selects experienced media terrorists to carry out the “kill.” To sabotage the nomination of Herbert E. Ellingwood to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, PAW hired media consultant Tony Schwartz who is famous for producing the most vicious TV spot ever shown. A 1964 political ad, it featured a little girl picking daisies and falsely suggested that Barry Goldwater would start a nuclear war.
PAW spokesmen are diehard absolutists and extremists in defining the dogma of the separation of church and state. To them, moderation in the pursuit of this goal is no virtue. PAW wants a wall of separation that censors out all public mention of our religious heritage, and which bars from public office and political influence all those who exercise their right of free speech to mention the importance of religion in their lives.
But is PAW really absolutist, or is PAW only against the influence of conservative preachers while PAW is “out to lunch” when liberal preachers engage in politics? Funny thing, we don’t hear any complaint from PAW when the National Council of Churches sends money abroad to pro-Communist guerrilla fighters, or when the National Conference of Catholic Bishops issues its pastoral letters criticizing Reagan’s defense policies or supporting Mondale-style economics.
In the most recent case of church-state entanglement, there was a deafening silence coming from the PAW corner. PAW didn’t notice the key role the Roman Catholic hierarchy played in the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and of Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti.
The Philippine Catholic Bishops played a central part, calling for resistance to Marcos and describing the February 7 presidential election as “unparalleled in the fraudulence of their conduct.” “Unparalleled” is a ridiculous remark, considering the many fraudulent elections that take place all over the world (even in the United States) and the pitifully puny experience the Filipinos have had with elections at all.
The Catholic station Radio Veritas was the main voice of the campaign to depose Marcos. It carried the call by the Philippine Cardinal to rally demonstrators against Marcos. A Vatican official admitted that “the Church has put itself to the service of a revolution.”
We find the same double standard when we look at South Africa. In the PAW scheme of things, it is okay for Bishop Desmond Tutu to attack President Reagan, but it’s unacceptable for the Rev. Jerry Falwell to attack Bishop Tutu.
Or, look at Central America. PAW has yet to criticize the motley collection of clerics and nuns who are posturing in favor of the Communists in Nicaragua and against the Reagan Administration’s efforts to help the Freedom Fighters.
So maybe it isn’t a matter of separation of church and state at all. It’s just a matter of whether you line up with the conservative agenda or with the liberal agenda.
If PAW would stop labeling everyone they don’t like as censors, book burners, bigots, and threats to the First Amendment, and stop attempting to ascribe motives to those they don’t understand, we could get on with the debate about many issues with everyone exercising his own right of free speech (even if he is a preacher).
