Hypochristianity: Exposing the wrongs of the right

I wanted to open a discussion and review of one of the themes I think it's worth pursuing in a concerted manner. I see this as something that will be built in small subtle pieces and with repetition, evidence, and repetition, will become common knowledge, and weave well into the frames we use to combat right wing spin.

This theme is hypochristianity. The appropriateness of the name itself is open to debate, but the idea is this:

Every one of us knows that many of the preacher/politicians on the right who rant against abortion, seethe about stem cell research and gay marriage have no more beloved mantra than Family Values. Yet there are piles of evidence of these self same sermonizers have been divorced, caught in affairs, cheated on their taxes, employed illegal immigrants and worse.

(more below the fold)

These people are hypochristians. Their hypocrisy, however, is more devious than most because it exposes their professed allegiance to the values of the conservative right as empty rhetoric designed to win power.

The idea here is to push the frame that these politicians are using religious rhetoric to win votes. By bits and pieces, exposing and publicizing transgression, over many years the goal is for it to become clear that you can't trust a politician just because he rails against gays and abortion, and says he loves guns and Jesus that he will stand up for those values in government, or even live up to them in his own life. This frame in turn needs to be woven into broader frames of the progressive movement.

Now I know that politicians on the left are perhaps equally vulnerable to being exposed for moral and legal transgressions. But I think that the difference is that the same shortcomings are simply much more eggregious when they come from people who claim to be the standard bearers for the conservative religious agenda.

So I'd like to open up this discussion to thoughts about whether this is a useful strategy, ways to move the strategy forward, and of course, beginning to compile a list of elected Republican officials that are blatant Hypochristians.

•  Rate this diary...

  ...and discuss the effectiveness of this strategy and means of advancing it.

  And lets compile a list of Hypochristians and their offences.

  by nussbaumski on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:11:40 PM PDT

  •  Maybe it's just how you're saying it...

    As a Christian I feel very uncomfortable with compiling a "list" of folks with their offenses.

    Sure, I hate the "Love Won Out" nonsense of Dobson and what it does to people's psychological wellbeing, but I'm not about to put his name on a hit list.  That's not what this is about.

    We need to instead concentrate on what is wrong with our society and how we can try to reach out to people of all faiths to get them all working on how to fix these problems.  Just singling out people seems very counter-productive.

    by grannyhelen on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:22:15 PM PDT

    •  I'm open to your point...

      I guess the approach might be described a little differently...

      The main point I guess is that the right holds moral values issues hostage, even though they do it with words not deeds.

      By exposing their hypocrisy and making it patently obvious to all through a subtle but relentless campaign of exposure of that hypocrisy, we will undermine their hold on these issues. This will not only allow the left to speak to these issues on a level playing field, but also destroy the right wing's credibility on these issues and focus political discourse back to actual actions and results, as well as back to non-wedge meadningful issues.

      If this explanation of the approach speaks to you better then I encourage you to help with creating a more appropriate way of presenting it.

      by nussbaumski on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:55:50 PM PDT

      •  I understand what you're trying to say...

        ...but "exposing hypocracy" may or may not actually solve people's problems.

        I'd concentrate more on the stuff that really matters to pretty much all religions: aiding the poor, the sick, the elderly, children...if a religious person refuses to engage in these efforts it is then patently clear that they are being hypocritical.

        Additionally, I have no problems speaking out against religious interpretations I disagree with: i.e., the virulant stance against gay marriage by born again Christians, or the insistance by the "pro-life" community that secular society remove all rights a woman has to abortion or even birth control because this would conform to their religious beliefs.

        I chose not to label this "hypocracy", mind you, just a very strong difference of opinion.

        Maybe you could channel your passions into speaking out for the poor, the indigent and those in prison.  I think this would be in keeping with the spirit of a religious life and get religious people excited in dialoguing with you.

        by grannyhelen on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:13:42 PM PDT

        •  I agree...

          but this approach is part of an attempt to do that. I'd love for us to talk about our values, whether they be derived from religious or secular beliefs. And these are the values you speak of, like helping the needy, among others.

          The problem is that currently the right wing has a monopoly over discussing these issues. The reason is that the common misconception is that they are the party of the bible, of the churchand of the pious. In order to speak about our values to people who are religious and currently vote Republican because they believe that the GOP is the party of religion need to be diabused of that misconception.

          One way to do that is to talk about our values and our faith. That's a terrific approach. I think coupled with that, though, it's important to undermine their claim to being the party of the bible. They talk a big game but do nothing to back it up. Exposing this is the first step to a more open dialogue about values and how to live up to them, not simply to use them as the basis for empty rhetoric devoid of supporting actions.

          So, to sum up, I agree with you, I just thing that pragmatically we are fighting an uphill battle and the playing field needs some levelling. Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

          by nussbaumski on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:29:06 PM PDT

•  When I read "hypochristian"

  I thought of it in terms of "the opposite of hyperchristian" rather than as I later realized you meant it - as a play with "hypocrite".

  On that basis, I dunno if your term works after all.  I like it, but the potential for confusion with something that has the opposite indication of what you intend could dilute things.

  by Loquatrix on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:32:22 PM PDT

•  How about a bumper sticker

  to go with it all.....something along the lines of, "SOME Christians give religion a bad name - stop the hypocrisy, for the sake of Christianity!"

  by guidess on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:36:43 PM PDT

•  as for a list of offences

  why don't we start with the fact that they aren't really christian, or they don't know what christianity means, its one of the two.

  list has to start with:
  coburn
  demint
  I'd say that both need to go borrow or buy a bible that includes the new testament.

  by 100meters on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:42:01 PM PDT

•  thats offences

  whoops

  by 100meters on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:43:29 PM PDT

•  Let's not let them define the game...

  Hi all:

  Here's the thing. Everybody's a hypocrite about something. I'm not so sure it's a grand idea to start looking for foibles and sins to condemn James Dobson and pals. That's what they do, and it's disgusting.

  I'd much prefer to hang 'em out on the message they evangelize. Public promotion of a bankrupt creed seems like fair game.

  For instance: Summer 2003, Gov. Riley of Alabama presents a plan to reform the state's regressive tax code, and makes a public plea the the state's christians to help him pass it so that they can do what the bible says they should- look out for the least among them. The plan meant lifting rate at which a family begins to pay state taxes- which is something like $3500 anually- and taxing industry at a fair rate.

  Guess who campaigned to defeat Riley's reform? Falwell. He said it wasn't christian because the bible says "give unto cesar what is cesar's," and the question for christians, he said, was; exactly how much is cesar's?

  And so Alabama's tax code is still regressive, and Falwell drives away in his SUV....... smiling and full of what he assures us is god's love.

  They do plenty to be ashamed of publicly. There's really no need to go after them personally.

  by acorn on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:05:29 PM PDT

  •  I remember Gov. Riley's proposal...

    It shouldn't have been a man-bites-dog story, but it was.  Kudos to Riley for trying to put his faith into practice in a constructive way, and brickbats to those "Christians" who helped kill the proposal.

    I'm a bit uncomfortable looking for dirt - I seem to recall a passage about taking the beam out of one's own eye before taking the speck out of someone else's eye - but anyone who holds him/herself out as a paragon of morality while engaging in the same behavior he/she would condemn in others should be exposed.
    

    by KTinOhio on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:28:37 PM PDT

    •  Sure, but...

      that's a Mr. Nice Guy strategy...

      Karl Rove's favorite strategy when he knows he's behind is to muddy the waters by throwing wild accusations every which way. The issue gets so confused that people figure it's just a toss-up, even though one guy is head and shoulders about the other.

      Case in point, Bush and Kerry's military service. By the time all the SBVT's got done, people just didn't know how to sort through the stories and gave each candidate equal blame/credit for their service. When in truth, even if Kerry didn't deserve his medals, he actually went to Vietnam while Bush, even if he served honorably, clearly did not.

      I'm not saying go on a witch hunt, I'm just saying that there are documented facts that should be brought into the public discourse more emphatically to at least muddy the waters on the issue of who the party that best represents the bible really is.

      by nussbaumski on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:50:12 PM PDT

      •  I didn't say...

        ...we shouldn't do it.  Jesus reserved his harshest words for hypocrites.
        

        by KTinOhio on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:16:49 PM PDT

•  redmorals

  One girl started a weblog that documents and catalogs the hypocrisy you are speaking of.
  Who,
  What
  Where

  www.redmorals.com

  You might like this idea of laying it out like fresh dirty laundry.

  by juliagoolia on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:54:07 PM PDT

  •  thanks for the link

    Looks like a great resource.

    by nussbaumski on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:57:56 PM PDT

•  Wrong problem

  Attacking religious/political leaders who don't live up to the ideals of their religion will just be counterproductive - they have all sinned...etc.

  The problem is not that religious leaders are sinful, but that the religion has veered 180 degrees away from its Founder.  It is not possible to reconcile right-wing social, foreign and economic policy with the teaching of Jesus.  

  by cdunaway on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:18:39 PM PDT