Synopses & Reviews
The Reverend Barry Lynn explains why the Religious Right has it all wrong.
In the wake of the 2004 presidential election, the Religious Right insisted that George Bush had been handed a mandate for an ideology-based social agenda, including the passage of a “marriage amendment” to ban same-sex unions, diversion of tax money to religious groups through “faith-based initiatives,” the teaching of creationism in public schools, and restrictions on abortion. Led by an aggressive band of television preachers and extremist radio personalities, the Religious Right set its sights on demolishing the wall of separation between church and state.
The Reverend Barry Lynn is a devout Christian, but this propaganda effort disturbs him deeply. He argues that politicians need to stop looking to the Bible to justify their actions and should consult another source instead: the U.S. Constitution.
When the Founding Fathers of our great nation created the Constitution, they had seen firsthand the dangers of an injudicious mix of religion and government. They knew what it was like to live under the yoke of state-imposed faith. They drew up a model for the new nation that would allow absolute freedom of religion. They knew that religion, united with the raw power of government, spawns tyranny.
Yet the Religious Right now seems distrustful of those principles inherent in the Constitution, viewing the separation of church and state only as a dangerous anti-Christian principle imposed upon our nation. In reality, the separation between church and state has been an important ally to religion: with the state out of the picture, hundreds of religions have grown and prospered. Religion doesn’t need the government’s assistance, any more than it is practical or appropriate for religious doctrine to be fostered in the government or taught in public schools.
As an explicitly religious figure speaking out against the Religious Right, Lynn has incurred the wrath of such personalities as Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, who once said Lynn was “lower than a child molester.” Lynn has continuously taken on these radicals of the Religious Right calmly and rationally, using their own statements and religious fervor to prove that when they attack the constitutionally mandated separation, they’re actually attacking freedom of religion.
In Piety & Politics, the Reverend Barry Lynn continues the fight—educating Americans about what is at stake, explaining why it is crucial that we maintain the separation of church and state, and galvanizing us to defend the honor of our religious freedom.
About the Author
The Reverend Barry W. Lynn is an ordained United Church of Christ minister and an attorney. In 1992, he became executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Lynn’s nationally syndicated radio talk show, Culture Shocks with Barry Lynn, can be heard at cultureshocks.com.
Reading Group Guide
The separation of church and state is one of the most contentious and complicated issues in America today, and few opinions in this passionate debate are more controversial than those of Reverend Barry W. Lynn, ordained minister and fierce proponent of the separation of the two entities. Part manifesto, part call to arms, Piety & Politics is sure to inspire lively and insightful dialogue.
The questions below are designed to help guide your reading group’s discussion of Piety & Politics. To enhance your conversation further, consider circulating a copy of the U.S. Constitution among participants prior to meeting; printed editions are available in your local bookstore, and the document’s text is readily found online. Additionally, you could distribute the text of Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, which is believed to be the document from which the phrase “separation of church and state” was derived (this is also easily accessible online).
1. Before reading this book, what were your views of the controversy surrounding the issue of governmental and religious independence? Have they changed? If so, how?
2. Discuss the author’s vocation as a Christian minister and his progressive social and political views. Do you see a conflict between the two? Why or why not?
3. Discuss the intersection of religion and politics. Why has religion become such a large part of political discourse in recent memory? Do you think our country has benefited from religion being injected into national political debate? Why or why not?
4. “Imagine if [Thomas] Jefferson were alive and running for office today. His bold dismissal of miracles, his rejection of the Trinity, and his advice to his nephew would make him the Religious Right’s public enemy number one. It is a great irony that Jefferson, the man who helped birth our republic, could not today be elected to any office in it” (pages 28—29). Do you agree with the author’s assertion? Do you think other historical figures from the past might face opposition in this day and age? If so, which leaders, and what obstacles might they encounter?
5. Consider the national debate about evolution versus intelligent design in school science instruction, as well as the federal lawsuit regarding the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board’s choice to adopt intelligent design theory as part of its ninth-grade biology curriculum (the author details this in chapter 2). What do you think of this issue and of the judge’s ruling against the district?
6. How would you answer the question the author poses in chapter 2: “Since so much religious activity is legal in public schools, and since religions can be discussed in so many different ways, why do Americans keep fighting over religion in the public schools?” (page 64).
7. “At the end of the day, the faith-based initiative amounts to little more than a scheme by the federal government to put the poor on church steps one day and drop a bag of money there the next and pray they find one another” (page 118). Does harm come from government sponsorship of religious groups, or are there benefits to this kind of support? If the latter, what are some advantages to society?
8. “Religious texts are a poor basis for government because religious texts are notoriously open to varying interpretations” (page 170). Think of this statement in terms of the documents upon which American democracy was founded: the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights. Could the same be said of these documents, considering how society–and democracy–has changed since they were first conceived? Do you consider yourself a “constructionist,” meaning do you interpret documents like the Bible or the Constitution literally, or do you construe their meaning within the social context to which they might apply?
9. In chapter 7, the author discusses the Religious Right’s many attempts to force the removal of certain books from public library systems that they consider offensive or counter to religious teaching. Do you find it ironic that organizations that advocate religious freedom also desire to restrict the choices of books available to the public in an institution like a library? How do you believe the Religious Right is able to address this seeming incompatibility in its own views?
10. The author states in the conclusion: “Slowly but surely the wall of separation between church and state is being eroded, much to the detriment of our pluralistic democracy” (page 255). Do you agree? If so, what are some solutions to the problem?