Covert ops, Christian-style.

Former CIA employee Mark Tooley, hired by the right-wing Institute on Religion and Democracy to attack the United Methodist Church's social agenda, launched a vitriolic charge against that church in a 1996 mailing to thousands of its members. He avoided sending his mailing to officials of the church; it was an attempt to influence the laity just ahead of the church's quadrennial conference in April.

Since its beginning in 1981, the IRD has again and again attacked the National Council of Churches, the World Council, United Methodists, and Pres-byterians. It has refrained from attacking churches with a right-wing agenda, such as the Southern Baptists and the Roman Catholics.

In his letter, Tooley claimed:

The church was supporting (1) Marxist guerrilla movements in Central America; (2) violent revolution in southern Africa; (3) halting U.S. defense programs; (4) government-funded abortion; (5) expanding the role of the federal government in the lives of ordinary Americans.

He then asked, "Did membership in the United Methodist Church require loyalty to a political program of the far left?" Tooley, who learned his trade of dirty tricks in the CIA, did not--and could not--document any of these assertions.

Hired by the IRD in 1994 after an eight-year stint with the CIA, Tooley set up his office--known as UMAction for Faith, Freedom, and Family--across the street from Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C. Foundry is the church that both the Clintons and the Doles attended. According to right-wing columnist Cal Thomas, Tooley researched the sermons and writings of pastor J. Philip Wogaman and even attended the church to check up on him.

Tooley wrote in the spring 1993 IRD periodical that, at a service attended by Senator and Mrs. Dole, Wogaman "asked listeners to oppose the Republican Contract with America." According to Tooley, this announcement was "anti-Republican." As a matter of fact, Wogaman did not attack the Republicans. A three-page document which was available in the church's social hall merely suggested study of the contract's ten points along with pertinent positions of the United Methodist Church on such issues as poverty and the separation of church and state. There was no reference, as Tooley claimed, to opposing Republican policy; instead, Wogaman's brief paper suggested "study, reflection, and prayerful analysis."

The IRD provided the always helpful Cal Thomas with a copy of Tooley's article, which called Wogaman "left of center." Tooley also wrote an article for the right-wing journal, The American Spectator, attacking the pastor, specifically targeting the Doles with the question: "What must Foundry's parishioners Bob and Elizabeth Dole think?" Not long after that, the Doles left Foundry to attend National Presbyterian Church. Tooley had won his first big battle for "reform."

Although the IRD raises tax-deductible funds from letters attacking churches and other groups, its primary source of revenue continues to be right-wing foundations, and its leadership is a board of right-wing Christians. Under the pretense of church reform, the IRD attacks those who do not conform to its ideology, but it never attacks churches with right-wing agenda.

Turning now to the Christian Coalition, we note that it has begun a nation-wide series of seminars on how to take control of local school boards. The first seminar, held in Atlanta in May 1995, was the kickoff for a series of seminars to be held in 1996 in all 50 states. There were 114 people from 22 states at the first seminar, more than 75 percent of whom planned to become school board candidates.

There are two reasons for attending these seminars. One, of course, is to get elected to school boards. The other, according to Charles H. Cunningham, the coalition's director of voter education, is to get name recognition for future office. According to Cunningham, "Local candidates, particularly those for school board, are the farm teams for the future for higher elected office."

The seminars, while not using the "stealth candidate" designation employed in the past, warned candidates to stay away from religion, creationism, and sex education and "stick with secular issues such as academic standards, school choice, and educational over-haul." Mark P. Campbell, a Republican media consultant, urged candidates to "describe themselves with phrases like community activist, government watch-dog, or business leader." They were encouraged to avoid confrontation, "smile as much as you can," and steer clear of religious agendas.

In response to these efforts, the Interfaith Alliance of Washington State is asking all school board candidates to sign a pledge in which they promise to "affirm the religious diversity of this country" and "reject any political group which preaches or practices exclusion and intolerance, including any assertion that votes for its candidates are `votes for God.' " The alliance also sent questionnaires to candidates asking their stand on such issues as school prayer, use of tax dollars for private or parochial schools, and the teaching of creationism. Results will be tabulated for a voters guide to be distributed before each school board election.

Candidates signing the pledge vow to "campaign without any appeal to prejudice or discrimination based on race, religion, gender, marital status, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or age." The Christian Coalition state director, Dave Welch, said he had no objection to the survey but considered the pledge "too broad and meaningless."

Another effort of those opposed to public schools is the home-school movement, which includes many people who are neither religious nor right wing. The Christian right is now engaged in an effort to take over the home-school movement, which started years ago as an ad hoc and unstructured grass-roots movement and was, to some extent, unified and coordinated by the Home School Legal Defense Association, the brain-child of Michael Farris, a right-wing Christian from Virginia. The HSLDA was intended for legal protection only; it charged a membership fee of $100 and eventually represented 18,500 families in all 50 states.

Now, however, Farris has set up a subsidiary known as the National Center for Home Education, which is intended not only to be the centralized control of the home-school movement but also to put it firmly in the hands of Christian Coalition types. Through a periodical, The Teaching Home, and in other ways, Christian home schoolers were urged to organize and to sign statements of faith in order to be leaders in the home-school movement. This, in turn, led to the formation of specifically Christian state organizations.

Farris then wrote in several home-school publications:

Who gets to speak for the home-schooling movement? The majority speaks for the movement. Why should it rattle anyone's cage for the majority of home-schoolers to define the position of the movement? I would hope that non-Christian homeschoolers would endorse the rights of Christian homeschoolers--including the right to vote our convictions and the right of majority rule.

This has produced protests that the previous networks of home-schoolers are being destroyed so that only right-wing Christians can control the movement. Some home-schoolers have objected to being part of a discriminatory organization; others, to signing a statement of faith that has a very narrow educational and ideological point of view. Still others have argued that the very reason for home schooling is freedom to define the method of teaching and to make other decisions based upon individual rather than coerced beliefs. However, Michael Farris, who endorses the same autocratic and hierarchical approach as other right-wing organizations, apparently wants nothing less than for his brand of Christians to dominate the movement.